Eating meat/Cruelty to animals

[Mister Sharpe]

This is actually not true (either entirely false or only partially true depending on the specifics). Some meat is quite healthy for us - rich in vitamins and such. But it also depends what kind of meat we are discussing (processed meats for example are indeed a problem), how you prepare those meats and how much of them you eat.

Well, I ought to have been more specific, true.  But the negatives on processed and red meat are more encompassing and proven than - apparently - you believe.  Please see attached from WHO:   http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

[Mister Sharpe]

I'm a vegetarian. Does it matter?

Yup.  Better for you and better for the planet. 

[Ken B]

I'm a vegetarian. Does it matter?

Yes. More for the rest of us!

I also suggest to good looking guys that celibacy is wise. 

[Mister Sharpe]

     
     A lamb doesn't have a concept of what will eat it. I do, and I don't attribute my concepts beyond their useful range. Not wanting to be eaten plays a role on avoiding situations where I might be. Lambs and other creatures avoid being eaten without the concepts.

     We can and do protect animals, and could desire to do more. For myself I would like to see that happen, based on the understanding that this is a feature of human and not lamb culture. If we decide that we don't want to inflict needless suffering on animals we'll figure out what that means from a non-lamb perspective whatever lambs baa.

Actually, lambs have a fairly good notion of predators - an adept sense of smell and hearing that lets them know they're what's for dinner.  Their herd instinct makes them, in human terms, seem exceptionally stupid, when in fact it is their only means of defense (hope the guy in front o' me gets it instead of me, perhaps, dunno).  And researchers have discovered they are smarter than we thought previously (as most species turn out to be).  We may one day be able to talk to animals, inc. sheep.  Scientists are making headway for example on understanding the language of Egyptian Fruit Bats; they are highly vocal and it seems - most argumentative.  Anyway, drogulus, our treatment of sheep should be on their level - as best we know it - rather than ours (it's been ours for eons - aided and abetted by Judeo-Christian notions of "Reign[ing] over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals..."  It hasn't gone so very well for them; National Geographic recently reported a rate of 100 to 1,000 species lost per million per year, mostly due to human-caused habitat destruction and climate change. If man is indeed reigning over the animals it is a reign of terror.  No one has to speak animal to understand that.  Of course, that's a rather different theme than eating animals raised for the purpose.   But I believe psychologically they go hand in hand - chalk it all up to human indifference and self-obsession. 

[Mister Sharpe]

Yes. More for the rest of us!

I also suggest to good looking guys that celibacy is wise. 

So true, listening to classical CDs leads to madness and deafness - best send them to me, esp. medieval music as my collection is most weak in that area.   

[Ken B]

So true, listening to classical CDs leads to madness and deafness - best send them to me, esp. medieval music as my collection is most weak in that area.

You didn't get my letter?? I held a lottery and you won my collection. I can't wait to send it to you!

I just need to pay to get it out of storage, in Nigeria, but apparently I need the winner to do that for tax purposes. I take PayPal.

[Mister Sharpe]

You didn't get my letter?? I held a lottery and you won my collection. I can't wait to send it to you!

I just need to pay to get it out of storage, in Nigeria, but apparently I need the winner to do that for tax purposes. I take PayPal.

THANKS so much, Ken, I'll get on Paypal, pal, straight away! 

[drogulus]

Actually, lambs have a fairly good notion of predators - an adept sense of smell and hearing that lets them know they're what's for dinner.  Their herd instinct makes them, in human terms, seem exceptionally stupid, when in fact it is their only means of defense (hope the guy in front o' me gets it instead of me, perhaps, dunno).  And researchers have discovered they are smarter than we thought previously (as most species turn out to be).  We may one day be able to talk to animals, inc. sheep.  Scientists are making headway for example on understanding the language of Egyptian Fruit Bats; they are highly vocal and it seems - most argumentative.  Anyway, drogulus, our treatment of sheep should be on their level - as best we know it - rather than ours (it's been ours for eons - aided and abetted by Judeo-Christian notions of "Reign[ing] over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals..."  It hasn't gone so very well for them; National Geographic recently reported a rate of 100 to 1,000 species lost per million per year, mostly due to human-caused habitat destruction and climate change. If man is indeed reigning over the animals it is a reign of terror.  No one has to speak animal to understand that.  Of course, that's a rather different theme than eating animals raised for the purpose.   But I believe psychologically they go hand in hand - chalk it all up to human indifference and self-obsession. 

     I wasn't talking about how smart lambs are. They don't have notions, it's preconceptual smartness, not saying anything against it, our conscious version was built on it, but it's radically different. One way to put it is that entities that think they are conscious 1) are and 2) communicate that to others that are conscious. We live in another dimension. Because so much of our behavior is close to that of the creatures we resembled once it's natural to think they behave according to the same "notions", though they can't use or make notions and are complete without them. You don't care what a dog doesn't know, and it wouldn't endow a dog with any advantage and it hasn't the means to care about such an undog state of affairs.

     Our treatment of animals will always be on our level. It's our decision whatever way we go, and our reasons because reasons are what we have.

[snyprrr]

I find the weeping insincere

Seriously?





You're telling me those aren't "real" tears?


Well




I'm still right, you know.

Just ask Karl





btw- I like Morrissey as much as anyone 0:), so there

[NikF]

I'm not a vegetarian, but I know it's possible to be healthy and strong without eating meat. Many years ago I trained in a boxing gym with another amateur welterweight who was Indian (Punjabi) and a vegetarian. This guy was noted for his wholehearted approach to training and was as powerful as hell. He lived with his parents and on a couple of occasions invited me to their home to eat some of the wonderful food his mother and his older sister prepared. An aside: his sister was gorgeous.
And I learned tonight that a young woman I'm dating is a vegetarian. She appears healthy indeed.

[Jo498]

I recommend "The omnivore's dilemma" to both carnivores and vegetarians, unless you already have read it. I eat meat but I will further reduce my consumption because of health reasons. (I am only around 10 pounds overweight and never ate lots of meat nor drank lots of alcohol but have a problem with gout attacks and it seems that the standard medication for lowering uric acid does not work well for me, so diet is another option to try to reduce it.)

[drogulus]

     Let's say you make an argument that a rat has fear and humans have fear, humans have consciousness and therefore rats have, too. The argument assumes stasis, no path from rat to human, no chance for a human to not only have new skills but to acquire them along the path from a common rat/human ancestor. Paths loom large after evolution is considered, not before.

      If, on evolution as a master process, humans are the result of a lineage with a unique skill set that manifests itself by the opinion that we are conscious, it would be sensible to withhold the consciousness designation from animals that don't express opinions. That condition would be that no other marker could be found other that the ones like language that can express thoughts. This contains the view that conscious thoughts are tied to expressions of them intrinsically or we have no criteria for consciousness at all. Rat thoughts are not disallowed, rat opinions are.

     There are arguments both ways on the extent to which moral value is applied on assumptions of consciousness, or other criteria like systemic resemblance below the conscious level.

     I saw Dennett last night and he said 1) in terms of consciousness chimps are closer to desks than humans and 2) we should assume a consciousness ramp so that from desk to chimp is quite a stretch.

     If I had bothered to ask the Prof anything I'd be tempted to get his opinion about the theory that consciousness is only a few thousand years old.

     

[snyprrr]

If this is like an AA Thread for people who want to rip their roommate's cat apart with their bare hands?, well I'm here to confess.

I mean, it's only the MontyPython influence in my humoure... but aye... oy.... eek....

And no, it's not the cat's fault...


No... I don't know how sensitive this Thread has gotten, so I'll quell the urge to vomit all my hairballs out, but...


All of a sudden I'm thinking about dirty hippies who "wouldn't hurt a fly" and let their bodies become ... I mean... even the thought that they might be "killing" microbes every time they run their fingers through their... oh, wait, their hair is all clumped up like a cow pat...

NEVERMIND





Nope, more Ranting on its way:






And now I have to worry about commies wrecking the country... dictators, "fascists" (huh boy!! what a hoot) and the great unwashed all coming to destroy whatever's left of this burning cinder of a rock...



maybe I'm trying to cultivate a giant heart attack because of the fear of a long and decrepid(?) aging.... every day I look over my music and try to say goodbye, since none of us know the day or hour of hour own returning...



Did I mention my roommate's newish comforter is covered is cat puke and cigarette holes... and food... and... stuff....


GAAAAAAAHHHH


sorry- back to the animals-



When I was young I could have very easily become the ant/magnifying glass killer type... I think my innate guilty conscience wouldn't allow it- I remember once I was with my cousin and on a dare I hacked a frog to bits with a rake, and then immediately ran screaming down the road realizing what a horrendous thing I'd done...

I still kill bugs, though I'm maddeningly selective as to which I take pity on... if a spider seems cute or friendly looking I'll let em pass, but if they are horrible monster I can't sleep until they are wallpaper glaze.

Are insects covered in this Thread? sorry if I digress...


oh wait!

[Karl Henning]

.... every day I look over my music and try to say goodbye, since none of us know the day or hour of hour own returning...

The most eloquent reaction to the El Tupé administration yet.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Ken B]

     Let's say you make an argument that a rat has fear and humans have fear, humans have consciousness and therefore rats have, too. The argument assumes stasis, no path from rat to human, no chance for a human to not only have new skills but to acquire them along the path from a common rat/human ancestor. Paths loom large after evolution is considered, not before.

      If, on evolution as a master process, humans are the result of a lineage with a unique skill set that manifests itself by the opinion that we are conscious, it would be sensible to withhold the consciousness designation from animals that don't express opinions. That condition would be that no other marker could be found other that the ones like language that can express thoughts. This contains the view that conscious thoughts are tied to expressions of them intrinsically or we have no criteria for consciousness at all. Rat thoughts are not disallowed, rat opinions are.

     There are arguments both ways on the extent to which moral value is applied on assumptions of consciousness, or other criteria like systemic resemblance below the conscious level.

     I saw Dennett last night and he said 1) in terms of consciousness chimps are closer to desks than humans and 2) we should assume a consciousness ramp so that from desk to chimp is quite a stretch.

     If I had bothered to ask the Prof anything I'd be tempted to get his opinion about the theory that consciousness is only a few thousand years old.

     

I,d like to know his opinion too. That,s another book on my unread list. The idea is both plausible and silly, it's either brilliant or ridiculous.

[drogulus]

I,d like to know his opinion too. That,s another book on my unread list. The idea is both plausible and silly, it's either brilliant or ridiculous.

     From Dennett's paper Julian Jaynes's Software Archeology:

Right and wrong, however, are parts of morality, a peculiar phenomenon that can't predate a
certain set of concepts, including the concepts of right and wrong. The phenomenon is created in
part by the arrival on the scene of a certain set of concepts. It is not that animals just haven't
noticed that they are doing things that are evil and good. Lacking the concept, they are not doing
anything right or wrong; there isn't any evil or good in their world. It's only once you get in a
certain conceptual environment that the phenomenon of right and wrong, the phenomenon of
morality, exists at all.

Now, I take Jaynes to be making a similarly exciting and striking move with regard to
consciousness. To put it really somewhat paradoxicallv, you can't have consciousness until you
have the concept of consciousness. In fact he has a more subtle theory than that, but that's the
basic shape of the move.

[Andante]

Girls eat salad, men eat meat.