Would humanity be better off if more people were ascetics?

Page 3 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,540

20 Feb 2014, 8:52 am

Yeah..the world's a dirty place..we have to kill to eat..like every other carnivore or omnivore...

That's reality...

And repressing any part of human nature..including those with a greater propensity to eat animal protein..is a sure path to human suffering...

I'm not going to force another omnivore out of my species to eat only vegetables..reducing their natural occurring androgens..which are necessary for vitality in life..

nor are they going to limit my consumption..either..

That's fair...

More respect for animals that we do kill to feed us would be great in giving them a better life..like what Temple Grandin has done through her innovative..ideas...

Humans were hunter and gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years...

This agriculture thingy..is pretty new stuff..

And lots of folks are in indeed suffering from it..already..from reduced testosterone levels..gluten intolerances..and a whole range of other issues..for a diet..that is actually too high in vegetable and grain products..for what the reality of what we ARE evolved for...PARTICULARLY friggin SUGAR...

And some human animals..DO have a greater need for animal protein than others..

There is no rule for human nature that fits all..

And i can tell ya..this..as a 222LB MUSCULAR.. very hairy male..with big canine teeth..

i AM evolved to eat meat..

And i ain't IGNORANT.. enough to go against mother
nature...

No matter what anyone's philosophy may say different...
ON THEIR P's and Q's on what people should do in their WILL to
survive..a TRULY HEALTHY LIFE..

WE ARE NOT HERE TO SUFFER...FOR MORALS..

THAT'S FOR SURE....

BUT SURE GO AHEAD IF YA WILL..

BUT LIFE IS TOO SHORT FOR THAT FOR ME..
and I DO LOVE TO SINK MY CANINE TEETH INTO ANIMAL FAT...

MY EYES ROLL BACK IN MY HEAD SOMETIMEs...

But i don't play games and pretend i am better than any other
friggin omnivore on this earth..to mind those

P's and Q's....

And i'm glad someone else is killing the animals for me..that's hard work..

and i do not personally wanna kill any animal...

So i'm not gonna judge 'em for how they do it..
if i can't do it..
myself.

I EAT MEAT.
I AM A MEAT EATER.
vegetables are ok ..now and then....

Oh..and here's some research too..that debunks myths about
why Veganism is better than
human nature..

http://authoritynutrition.com/top-5-rea ... ible-idea/

And no i do not eat other human beings..
but..
i haven't been faced with starvation yet..
either..
so....

i do not know what i would do...
if i was all snowed in ..in the mountains in a plane crash..
or
any of that..

One thing for sure is...

i do not want to do that..anymore than
i wanna give up

meat..

That's fair too...
enough
for
me....

And as i get older i eat less beef..
more chicken and seafood..
simply cause i don't have a desire to eat it..
as much..
Nature gives us built in clues and cues..
if we listen to our bodies..
a failure to that..
is also a great source..
of
human suffering..

I'll go with nature..
almost..
every
time..

over BS..any day
of
the
week....
but i don't eat BS..either...
no need for it other than..
fertilizer....
for
flowers and vegetables..
and
all that other
stuff..
in nature's
cycle
of
life..
Before i eat some more
meat....as furnished as such by..
overall nature..and
human
nature..
to eat
meat.

AND oh by the way..here is proof enough..i cannot stick with veggies...

I am wild human being..animal..
not a grain fed domesticated one...

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2014/01/03 ... -wild-one/


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,301

20 Feb 2014, 12:17 pm

First I had to read what ascetic was because I never heard of that before. There is no way I would do it. I'd be more likely to believe in following hedonism. Life should be about pleasure and enjoyment, not about denying yourself things and being miserable.



hyena
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

20 Feb 2014, 12:26 pm

I know they aren’t vegan, veganism was impossible before the invention of artificial B12. Now it is possible. As for Sikhism I think I recall a Sikh cleric saying that meat eaters are destined for hell. Within any religion you can often find contradicting views. But I am not Sikh, I merely mentioned them as proof of vegetarian humans.

How do thousands die because of me? You need to have some kind of source with this claim.

Why would you not kill factory farmed human? Why would you condemn those who do? You kill humans with by using technology? “Geez, that's the sweetest deal one can get for a clean conscience.” So you are willing to kill because you do not want to live a primitive life but you are unwilling to kill for taste and would look down on those who do?

“The thing is, if you let a human live. You are unleashing a lot of potential.” Then why don’t you unleash that potential by living a primitive life? Why don’t you kill less people by adopting such a lifestyle? So it seems to me that you are saying about humans the same thing I am saying about animals! Why do you criticize me then when you do the same thing?

Besides, not a lot of humans make some sort of contribution! In fact there are also those who go around killing others! I am sure if certain very poor people in very poor countries were eaten no one would feel any impact, progress wise. Not to mention mentally retarded humans, who pretty much, like cows, sit around and crap until they are eaten by a predator (no offense meant). Would you be willing to eat the mentally retarded who cannot make a contribution to humanity? That seems to solve the problem for you. So what do you say?
Furthermore are you willing to let the retarded die so that non-retarded can have their resources and maybe contribute to humanity?
It isn’t intelligence that entitles one to consideration, it is ability to feel and suffer. To you a cow's life is pointless, to her it's the world!


krankes_hirn wrote:
hyena wrote:
Sikhs, Hindus, and many Buddhists do not eat meat.

We have gone for centuries without pesticides, and from what I hear they are very harmful. How many birds and rodents can you shoot? Many will still get in. What about farmers who do not have a gun?

I take only vegan supplements. Competing for resources in order to survive is morally very different from enslaving an animal and torturing her when it is unnecessary. I oppose animal testing. How do vermin suffer more than factory farm animals? That seems impossible.

How many other animals have I killed? How much acid rain could my processor contribute to? How much paper and traveling does my processor save? Living a life free of technology and basic needs would make life impossible. But it would also make it extremely uncomfortable in the extreme. We cannot live decent lives without harming animals indirectly but we can live decent lives without enslaving animals and torturing them. To contribute as little as possible to harming animals indirectly I would have to give up knowledge, warmth, traveling, cooked food etc. In order to end death camps all you have to give up is certain tastes.

It is impossible for me to live a lifestyle free of harm to animals. I will save as many as I can. Especially ones that live in death camps. If you wish to bring specific examples you will have to give me numbers and sources for those numbers.

Modern life is possible without death camps. It isn't possible without resources. Yes we must compete for resources, we need not enslave animals in order to live decent lives.

Besides vegans are doing much more than the rest of you. If you can come up with ways I can harm less animals while still living a decent life I am all ears.

We can be better than nature. Nature has no morality. Killing other humans is also natural. Do you think we should be killing each other for mates and for resources? Do you think you know better than nature? There are many more examples where we part with nature in order to be more moral.

And one more thing, factory farms are not natural:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiFXlNkdRMc[/youtube]

I am willing to part with some flavours in order to end death camps! I am unwilling to part with shelter, knowledge, clothing, and technology to save more indirect harm to animals. I am doing much more than you though. I am sparing much more suffering. As you well know taste is much easier to give up than shelter, clothing and technology. Do you think better taste is worth torturing 200 animals annually? If I am asked: do I think some indirect deaths are worth our technology? I would answer yes. Technology at the cost of incidental humans and animals deaths is a must. Although we should be more responsible. Ideally we can work to reduce our population and use less resources. It it impossible to live without resources. Taste is not worth death camps. That is the difference.

Let me pose this question to you. We would be killing (indirectly) fewer humans if we gave up our technology and lived the primitive lifestyle you have in mind. Suppose you loved the taste of human flesh. Would you eat human flesh? Why not, if you do not live a primitive lifestyle? You too would be much more willing to part with taste than with technology. This shows that the principle I use is a general one that applies to humans as much as animals. We are unwilling to use another being for our own ends but we can indirectly harm other beings to get certain important things. Ask yourself the question I posed! Why would you be willing to not eat humans but would be willing to use technology which leads to human deaths. Why would you condemn a culture that enslaves, tortures, and kills and eats humans, while you yourself contribute to human deaths by using technology and other comforts? How do you answer?


As a matter of fact Budhist eat meat. (source: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html) Hindi aren't vegans (milk is a very important part of their diet) and they eat meat every once in while. And regarding Sikhism, there's an interesting quote from the Guru Granth Sahib

"Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom."

And besides that, those are not entire cultures, they are religious groups within other cultures.

And regarding your argument of taste: So it is not ok to kill something for its tastiness but it is so you can go and check on your facebook page, because let's face it, that the only purpose some pieces of technology serve. And you are not doing that much more to spare animal lives. You think 200 animals is a huge amount because you don't get to see the thousands that die because of you. And so by killing less than 1 percent of what you'd kill by eating meat you can sleep at night. Geez, that's the sweetest deal one can get for a clean conscience. So If I stopped eating chicken, fish, and other smaller animals I can get a clean conscience too. Because eating only beef makes me kill considerably a lower amount of animals since it takes one cow to feed a human for days. While I have to kill half a dozen shrimp for a cocktail. Look! By not eating shrimp I'm saving lots of animals! Can I get to brag to others how am I saving animals? Can I? Can I?

And regarding your human driven questions:

If I liked human flesh would I eat it?

Here's an interesting fact though, humans survived predators by engagin into cannibalism. Whenever a proedator killed or mortally injured a human, other humans would eat it so that there was nothing left for the predator. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism)

Would I eat human flesh, in a situation like the plane crash in Los Andes, I would. If it is about survival

Woudl I kill farmed humans? No

The thing is, if you let a human live. You are unleashing a lot of potential. That human has the power to make a lot of people happy, to discover new things, to get where others have never got before. If you let a cow leave, it would crap on the field and eat grass until it died a pointless and meaningless dead or get killed by another predator.

Now here's the funny thing

Would I enslave, kill (or allowed to be killed) another human for technology?

I pretty much do that already, and guess what? You too

Ever heard of FoxConn, a company where microchips used in lots of devices are built? Did you know they recently built nets around one of their buildings to keep their employees from killing themselves? That's how miserable they are there. And it is not about wages, it is about the horrible conditions they have to endure that no amount of money could ever compensate. But hey! thanks to them you get to have your technology. And lots of other conforts you enjoy come from places like that, child labor or even worse stuff. Let's not talk about the horrible conditions some farmers endure so you can eat your vegetables. So tell me, are you sure you are better than everybody else just by sparing a few chickens?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

20 Feb 2014, 1:33 pm

I'm not sure if it's even possible to feed everyone the world over with just grains. Humans need a diversified food source.



krankes_hirn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico City

20 Feb 2014, 2:20 pm

hyena wrote:
I know they aren’t vegan, veganism was impossible before the invention of artificial B12. Now it is possible. As for Sikhism I think I recall a Sikh cleric saying that meat eaters are destined for hell. Within any religion you can often find contradicting views. But I am not Sikh, I merely mentioned them as proof of vegetarian humans.

How do thousands die because of me? You need to have some kind of source with this claim.

Why would you not kill factory farmed human? Why would you condemn those who do? You kill humans with by using technology? “Geez, that's the sweetest deal one can get for a clean conscience.” So you are willing to kill because you do not want to live a primitive life but you are unwilling to kill for taste and would look down on those who do?

“The thing is, if you let a human live. You are unleashing a lot of potential.” Then why don’t you unleash that potential by living a primitive life? Why don’t you kill less people by adopting such a lifestyle? So it seems to me that you are saying about humans the same thing I am saying about animals! Why do you criticize me then when you do the same thing?

Besides, not a lot of humans make some sort of contribution! In fact there are also those who go around killing others! I am sure if certain very poor people in very poor countries were eaten no one would feel any impact, progress wise. Not to mention mentally retarded humans, who pretty much, like cows, sit around and crap until they are eaten by a predator (no offense meant). Would you be willing to eat the mentally retarded who cannot make a contribution to humanity? That seems to solve the problem for you. So what do you say?
Furthermore are you willing to let the retarded die so that non-retarded can have their resources and maybe contribute to humanity?
It isn’t intelligence that entitles one to consideration, it is ability to feel and suffer. To you a cow's life is pointless, to her it's the world!


So you missed the whole point completely.

It is not about who gets to be killed and who doesn't. It is about the fact that killing is pretty much an unavoidable thing. And while most of us aren't really the sort of people that kill for pleasure or cruelty, we really need to kill other animals to survive. And every single animal does it as well. Actually death and killing is not only somehting that just happens, it is necessary to happen in order to preserve a natural equilibrium. Even forest fires are necessary for the preservation of life (Some seed can't start growing until they have been exposed to over 400 °C) Now, you say that is primitive and that's really not the case. And even if it were, it is not less primitive than lots of human activities that are perfectly ok with you.

You don't know how thousands of animals get killed because of you? I guess it is an estimate, but it isn't really that hard to see why.

So, the average of arable land per capita is 0.2. Now, cicadas (locusts) attack crops periodically at a rate of about a 1 - 1.5 million per acre. (http://web.extension.illinois.edu/cicad ... 7year.html) once every 17 years. Assuming only 10 % of the cicadas are killed with pesticides in order to protect crops. Your death quota is a bit above 1,000. And that's only a single species, that is affected by a single activity you perform. Now there are other plagues that affect crops (lepidopters, mice, grasshopers) So the numbers only get bigger. Now, 163 different species make their home at any tree (http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.w ... manysp.htm) so, you get to kill some of those as well to fill up your quota of wood and wood-derived products. Everything adds up bit by bit and it is not hard to see how it will come to the thousands. The more activities we include, the more animals turn out to be dead.

So... the point here was the fact that you are using an arbitrary criterion to see what animals get to be killed and what animals don't. And then act as if it were something significant. Your choice of not eating meat and my choice of not eating shrimp have pretty much the same overall impact on our killed animals quota. But somehow you are deluding yourself into thinking that you are saving the world and doing a really good thing and try to back it up with some bogus claims that don't hold up when you see the big picture. If you want to be a vegan, it is ok. But

1) Stop saying you don't kill and torture animals because you do. The only thing you don't do is eat the carcasses.

2) Stop trying to turn your choice into something morally good because it isn't.

BTW, you should stop asking for others to back up their claims when you have really never done that at any time.



hyena
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

20 Feb 2014, 11:26 pm

You have avoided my questions. Why do you not want others to eat humans even though you use products which lead to incidental human deaths. Isn't this as supposedly arbitrary as my choice of not eating animals even though I use products which lead to incidental animal deaths? You keep criticizing my position but do not address this parallel issue which concerns you. I would very much like you to address this.

I oppose pesticides. If I had it my way we would be avoiding them. Short of starving myself there are unavoidable deaths. But my choice is minimizing even such deaths. As a result of my veganism less animals die incidentally in plant farming. I have no problem with competing with animals for resources and territory. It is a must. I would have less trouble with eating animals if they were hunted in the wild. There is a big moral difference between torturing animals endlessly in concentration camps and hunting them in their natural habitat, while they have a chance to enjoy life. Still I would choose not to hunt because I don't value taste more than the lives of animals. But hunting would be much better than the horrors of factory farming. Such horrors are not found even in nature.

Which claim would you like me to back?

krankes_hirn wrote:

So you missed the whole point completely.

It is not about who gets to be killed and who doesn't. It is about the fact that killing is pretty much an unavoidable thing. And while most of us aren't really the sort of people that kill for pleasure or cruelty, we really need to kill other animals to survive. And every single animal does it as well. Actually death and killing is not only somehting that just happens, it is necessary to happen in order to preserve a natural equilibrium. Even forest fires are necessary for the preservation of life (Some seed can't start growing until they have been exposed to over 400 °C) Now, you say that is primitive and that's really not the case. And even if it were, it is not less primitive than lots of human activities that are perfectly ok with you.

You don't know how thousands of animals get killed because of you? I guess it is an estimate, but it isn't really that hard to see why.

So, the average of arable land per capita is 0.2. Now, cicadas (locusts) attack crops periodically at a rate of about a 1 - 1.5 million per acre. (http://web.extension.illinois.edu/cicad ... 7year.html) once every 17 years. Assuming only 10 % of the cicadas are killed with pesticides in order to protect crops. Your death quota is a bit above 1,000. And that's only a single species, that is affected by a single activity you perform. Now there are other plagues that affect crops (lepidopters, mice, grasshopers) So the numbers only get bigger. Now, 163 different species make their home at any tree (http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/thomas.w ... manysp.htm) so, you get to kill some of those as well to fill up your quota of wood and wood-derived products. Everything adds up bit by bit and it is not hard to see how it will come to the thousands. The more activities we include, the more animals turn out to be dead.

So... the point here was the fact that you are using an arbitrary criterion to see what animals get to be killed and what animals don't. And then act as if it were something significant. Your choice of not eating meat and my choice of not eating shrimp have pretty much the same overall impact on our killed animals quota. But somehow you are deluding yourself into thinking that you are saving the world and doing a really good thing and try to back it up with some bogus claims that don't hold up when you see the big picture. If you want to be a vegan, it is ok. But

1) Stop saying you don't kill and torture animals because you do. The only thing you don't do is eat the carcasses.

2) Stop trying to turn your choice into something morally good because it isn't.

BTW, you should stop asking for others to back up their claims when you have really never done that at any time.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

20 Feb 2014, 11:36 pm

Because humans never want to eat humans...at least not that kind of eating.



hyena
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

20 Feb 2014, 11:41 pm

There are some who do.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Because humans never want to eat humans...at least not that kind of eating.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

21 Feb 2014, 12:05 am

hyena wrote:
There are some who do.


Name one who (legally) does it right now.



hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,301

21 Feb 2014, 4:45 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
hyena wrote:
There are some who do.


Name one who (legally) does it right now.


http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/5879



babybird
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 37,164
Location: Top deck of the funny bus....blowing bubbles

21 Feb 2014, 6:05 am

I thought it said: Would humanity be better off if more people wore specs?

I was going to say: You can get two for one at Specsavers.


_________________
I can't say that I have ever shat on my own doorstep.

Woof Woof! Cheep Cheep!


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,540

21 Feb 2014, 7:12 am

hyena wrote:
I know they aren’t vegan, veganism was impossible before the invention of artificial B12. Now it is possible. As for Sikhism I think I recall a Sikh cleric saying that meat eaters are destined for hell. Within any religion you can often find contradicting views. But I am not Sikh, I merely mentioned them as proof of vegetarian humans.

How do thousands die because of me? You need to have some kind of source with this claim.

Why would you not kill factory farmed human? Why would you condemn those who do? You kill humans with by using technology? “Geez, that's the sweetest deal one can get for a clean conscience.” So you are willing to kill because you do not want to live a primitive life but you are unwilling to kill for taste and would look down on those who do?

“The thing is, if you let a human live. You are unleashing a lot of potential.” Then why don’t you unleash that potential by living a primitive life? Why don’t you kill less people by adopting such a lifestyle? So it seems to me that you are saying about humans the same thing I am saying about animals! Why do you criticize me then when you do the same thing?

Besides, not a lot of humans make some sort of contribution! In fact there are also those who go around killing others! I am sure if certain very poor people in very poor countries were eaten no one would feel any impact, progress wise. Not to mention mentally retarded humans, who pretty much, like cows, sit around and crap until they are eaten by a predator (no offense meant). Would you be willing to eat the mentally retarded who cannot make a contribution to humanity? That seems to solve the problem for you. So what do you say?
Furthermore are you willing to let the retarded die so that non-retarded can have their resources and maybe contribute to humanity?
It isn’t intelligence that entitles one to consideration, it is ability to feel and suffer. To you a cow's life is pointless, to her it's the world!


krankes_hirn wrote:
hyena wrote:
Sikhs, Hindus, and many Buddhists do not eat meat.

We have gone for centuries without pesticides, and from what I hear they are very harmful. How many birds and rodents can you shoot? Many will still get in. What about farmers who do not have a gun?

I take only vegan supplements. Competing for resources in order to survive is morally very different from enslaving an animal and torturing her when it is unnecessary. I oppose animal testing. How do vermin suffer more than factory farm animals? That seems impossible.

How many other animals have I killed? How much acid rain could my processor contribute to? How much paper and traveling does my processor save? Living a life free of technology and basic needs would make life impossible. But it would also make it extremely uncomfortable in the extreme. We cannot live decent lives without harming animals indirectly but we can live decent lives without enslaving animals and torturing them. To contribute as little as possible to harming animals indirectly I would have to give up knowledge, warmth, traveling, cooked food etc. In order to end death camps all you have to give up is certain tastes.

It is impossible for me to live a lifestyle free of harm to animals. I will save as many as I can. Especially ones that live in death camps. If you wish to bring specific examples you will have to give me numbers and sources for those numbers.

Modern life is possible without death camps. It isn't possible without resources. Yes we must compete for resources, we need not enslave animals in order to live decent lives.

Besides vegans are doing much more than the rest of you. If you can come up with ways I can harm less animals while still living a decent life I am all ears.

We can be better than nature. Nature has no morality. Killing other humans is also natural. Do you think we should be killing each other for mates and for resources? Do you think you know better than nature? There are many more examples where we part with nature in order to be more moral.

And one more thing, factory farms are not natural:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiFXlNkdRMc[/youtube]

I am willing to part with some flavours in order to end death camps! I am unwilling to part with shelter, knowledge, clothing, and technology to save more indirect harm to animals. I am doing much more than you though. I am sparing much more suffering. As you well know taste is much easier to give up than shelter, clothing and technology. Do you think better taste is worth torturing 200 animals annually? If I am asked: do I think some indirect deaths are worth our technology? I would answer yes. Technology at the cost of incidental humans and animals deaths is a must. Although we should be more responsible. Ideally we can work to reduce our population and use less resources. It it impossible to live without resources. Taste is not worth death camps. That is the difference.

Let me pose this question to you. We would be killing (indirectly) fewer humans if we gave up our technology and lived the primitive lifestyle you have in mind. Suppose you loved the taste of human flesh. Would you eat human flesh? Why not, if you do not live a primitive lifestyle? You too would be much more willing to part with taste than with technology. This shows that the principle I use is a general one that applies to humans as much as animals. We are unwilling to use another being for our own ends but we can indirectly harm other beings to get certain important things. Ask yourself the question I posed! Why would you be willing to not eat humans but would be willing to use technology which leads to human deaths. Why would you condemn a culture that enslaves, tortures, and kills and eats humans, while you yourself contribute to human deaths by using technology and other comforts? How do you answer?


As a matter of fact Budhist eat meat. (source: http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/meat.html) Hindi aren't vegans (milk is a very important part of their diet) and they eat meat every once in while. And regarding Sikhism, there's an interesting quote from the Guru Granth Sahib

"Those who renounce meat, and hold their noses when sitting near it, devour men at night.
They practice hypocrisy, and make a show before other people, but they do not understand anything about meditation or spiritual wisdom."

And besides that, those are not entire cultures, they are religious groups within other cultures.

And regarding your argument of taste: So it is not ok to kill something for its tastiness but it is so you can go and check on your facebook page, because let's face it, that the only purpose some pieces of technology serve. And you are not doing that much more to spare animal lives. You think 200 animals is a huge amount because you don't get to see the thousands that die because of you. And so by killing less than 1 percent of what you'd kill by eating meat you can sleep at night. Geez, that's the sweetest deal one can get for a clean conscience. So If I stopped eating chicken, fish, and other smaller animals I can get a clean conscience too. Because eating only beef makes me kill considerably a lower amount of animals since it takes one cow to feed a human for days. While I have to kill half a dozen shrimp for a cocktail. Look! By not eating shrimp I'm saving lots of animals! Can I get to brag to others how am I saving animals? Can I? Can I?

And regarding your human driven questions:

If I liked human flesh would I eat it?

Here's an interesting fact though, humans survived predators by engagin into cannibalism. Whenever a proedator killed or mortally injured a human, other humans would eat it so that there was nothing left for the predator. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism)

Would I eat human flesh, in a situation like the plane crash in Los Andes, I would. If it is about survival

Woudl I kill farmed humans? No

The thing is, if you let a human live. You are unleashing a lot of potential. That human has the power to make a lot of people happy, to discover new things, to get where others have never got before. If you let a cow leave, it would crap on the field and eat grass until it died a pointless and meaningless dead or get killed by another predator.

Now here's the funny thing

Would I enslave, kill (or allowed to be killed) another human for technology?

I pretty much do that already, and guess what? You too

Ever heard of FoxConn, a company where microchips used in lots of devices are built? Did you know they recently built nets around one of their buildings to keep their employees from killing themselves? That's how miserable they are there. And it is not about wages, it is about the horrible conditions they have to endure that no amount of money could ever compensate. But hey! thanks to them you get to have your technology. And lots of other conforts you enjoy come from places like that, child labor or even worse stuff. Let's not talk about the horrible conditions some farmers endure so you can eat your vegetables. So tell me, are you sure you are better than everybody else just by sparing a few chickens?


The greatest thing about folks with intellectual disabilities is they often live a life of unconditional love..not sullied by abstract language ..collective intelligence..that comes from the illusions that culture brings...

They often share this love freely..impacting the life of others..for the rest of their lives..knowing..that yes love does actually exist unconditionally somewhere at least..

But for those who are cold of heart or soul...

They can often cannot see this..

So for them..the intellectually disabled may seem worthless..

Never knowing that the true secret of the greatest riches of all..

Is the sacred love..that many folks with intellectual disabilities..
live
their entire life....and share with others..as
well...improving their life and love..in a priceless way..

Dude or dudette..whatever may be the gender..39% of autistic folks have an intellectual disability..

this ain't the place to make remarks like this about folks with intellectual disability..

of course it is offensive..no matter what you say you intend..

but i for one will not overlook it..

while you attempt to save a cow..
for lunch...


ya missing something..bigger than beef..perhaps...
it seems....

or IQ..the kind that is not measured on standard tests...

The greatest IQ of all is IN emotional intelligence..

often quite high among folks..who score low
on them..culturally created IQ tests....

Never dismiss love..if ya will...
as unproductive..biggest mistake..ever..made..
by any human being.. and the most unintelligent one..
ever..
for sure..2

And yes it is possible to love and respect a domesticated animal for food..
and kill it and eat for food as well..

The American Indians did this for tens of thousands of years..

And so do some farmers..and hunters still....

It's just a matter of respect..AND SACRED NATURAL LOVE OF ALL OF NATURE...THE HARD PARTS AND THE EASIER PARTS...

And understanding THE ALL of nature..THE WAY IT REALLY IS..and not trying to make it into
a contrived CULTURAL illusion....by silly little human ants...


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

21 Feb 2014, 11:11 am

hanyo wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
hyena wrote:
There are some who do.


Name one who (legally) does it right now.


http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/print/5879

Kill someone, chop them up and eat all of it, not some pseudo artsy publicity stunt event to raise money.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

21 Feb 2014, 12:54 pm

hyena wrote:
Whole cultures have done without meat for millennia! I take DHA EPA and ALA. We all take supplements in one way or another. We do not need to intentionally kill animals to live. We need not kill animals who feed on our grains. We can make it hard for them to reach, but anything they eat is an acceptable loss. This will simply lead to slightly higher prices. We can live with that. It isn't what actually happens, but it is what should happen.


Whole cultures have gone without meat but none have been vegan. There is a gigantic difference between vegetarianism and veganism. Eggs, butter and dairy make a huge health difference. I would consider being vegetarian because eggs are important for health. But I would never be vegan. It is just too unhealthy.

Quote:
Veganism saves 200 animals a year of extreme torment in factory farms.]


This is the logical fallacy called Excluded Middle. There is not a binary choice between veganism and factory farms. I have chosen to eat meat and I also do not financially contribute to factory farms. Instead, I buy meat from a couple of small, local farms which do only local distribution (one sells from a freezer in the barn when not at the local farmers market). This is a hand-to-mouth existence and I am happy to pay the higher prices (than factory farmed) that keeps them in business so I continue to have this option.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

21 Feb 2014, 1:00 pm

krankes_hirn wrote:
hyena wrote:
Whole cultures have done without meat for millennia!


Can you tell me which ones? 'cause I looked it up and found nothing.

.


Hindus. But they eat/ate dairy. Sometimes vegans conflate veganism and vegetarianism but those diets are worlds apart nutritionally (because...eggs :D ).



hyena
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

21 Feb 2014, 5:12 pm

I apologize for not being more sensitive. I did not mean to hurt disabled people with that comment. But as a matter of fact there are mentally challenged humans whose abilities are similar to some animals. Now that is a fact, I am not making this up. If we discriminated against animals based on ability then we would have to discriminate against these humans too which would be evil! I am opposing ableism.

aghogday wrote:

The greatest thing about folks with intellectual disabilities is they often live a life of unconditional love..not sullied by abstract language ..collective intelligence..that comes from the illusions that culture brings...

They often share this love freely..impacting the life of others..for the rest of their lives..knowing..that yes love does actually exist unconditionally somewhere at least..

But for those who are cold of heart or soul...

They can often cannot see this..

So for them..the intellectually disabled may seem worthless..

Never knowing that the true secret of the greatest riches of all..

Is the sacred love..that many folks with intellectual disabilities..
live
their entire life....and share with others..as
well...improving their life and love..in a priceless way..

Dude or dudette..whatever may be the gender..39% of autistic folks have an intellectual disability..

this ain't the place to make remarks like this about folks with intellectual disability..

of course it is offensive..no matter what you say you intend..

but i for one will not overlook it..

while you attempt to save a cow..
for lunch...


ya missing something..bigger than beef..perhaps...
it seems....

or IQ..the kind that is not measured on standard tests...

The greatest IQ of all is IN emotional intelligence..

often quite high among folks..who score low
on them..culturally created IQ tests....

Never dismiss love..if ya will...
as unproductive..biggest mistake..ever..made..
by any human being.. and the most unintelligent one..
ever..
for sure..2

And yes it is possible to love and respect a domesticated animal for food..
and kill it and eat for food as well..

The American Indians did this for tens of thousands of years..

And so do some farmers..and hunters still....

It's just a matter of respect..AND SACRED NATURAL LOVE OF ALL OF NATURE...THE HARD PARTS AND THE EASIER PARTS...

And understanding THE ALL of nature..THE WAY IT REALLY IS..and not trying to make it into
a contrived CULTURAL illusion....by silly little human ants...



Last edited by hyena on 21 Feb 2014, 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.