is killing animals alright?{vegetarianism/buddhism etc}

The problem, leonheart, is that not everyone sees your morals as absolute or even particularly reasonable.

"first of all, i do not think "sussation of suffering" is paramount. i think "existance" is , because sussation of suffering "caters" to the basic "existance" without which it is useless. i do think death is worse than suffering."

This is totally subjective though. A very good case can be made for suffering being worse from point of intensity on. Personally I even think that most people do believe that or can be convinced. Take something easy like getting pinched. It hurts quite a bit for a second but it is over afterwards. Now imagine that you get pinched very strongly once every two second forever (just try it four-five times)...to me such a fate seems much worse than death, assuming we define death as absolute non-existance. Wouldn't you agree?

ur forgetting though that death means the end of everything including your SELF. sussation of suffering is great, but it has no meaning without a SELF being present. save your life first, then try and get rid of the suffering in it. without a life there is no point to getting rid of suffering. you get rid of suffering FOR your life.

"but what im saying is that THROUGH this evolution, we have evolved a higher brain and conciousness which is very different from the instinct driven brain and survival necessities of other animals. we can SEE that biology is a ***** and it tells you to kill other animals but that doesnt make the act RIGHT!"

This argumentation is also rather peculiar. If you go by it, you'd also have to accept that very many people that also have a conscience and consciousness, disagree with your particular evaluation and find eating and killing animals right. It seems at least balanced, I wouldn't say that that argument supports your idea at all, really.

no, i beleive those people are not using their better judgement and avoid the problem or do not think about it. we can not let practices like slavery and genocide continue simply on the argument that some people tdo not think it wrong for such things to happen. i said we have the ABILITY to see what is right and wrong, if people do not use that ability, does not mean it isnt there.

"take this as an example, put YOURSELVES in place of the animals and see how it would be to be rounded up, continuously fed so that one day soon, you and those around you would be slaughtered to fead other thinking fealing beings? similarly put yourself in another animal's place being hunted{by EITHER an animal or man}, and see how you would feal. "

Well, for those who enjoy meat, let them imagine how it would be to never again eat a juicy steak....have a perfectly fried schnitzel...have a delicious chili con carne ... and then let them weigh it up against the suffering of those animals (funnily enough, you do use suffering in your argumentation instead of death in there) and the real likelihood of them ever having to feel it against it.

I personally did that and meat won. I am not a very compassionate person though.

you honestly expect me to beleive that you put yourself in the position and found out that your life was not worth more than the enjoyement{not guarunteed} of a few mouthfulls of meat for a human being? non sense my friend. you didnt put YOURSELF in the place of the animal or a loved one. you just looked from your own current perspective and thought "as i am NOW, can i sleep with eating meat?" and wrote the answer to that. how about an easier example, one not so extreme, would you kill another human in the absence of livestock simply to satisfy your taste buds even in the presence of vegetarian alternatives?

"we can not stop animal from hunting each other but we surely can stop ourselves from hunting animals/eating them."

We could. Yes. Many of us feel that we shouldn't though.

that is because you have not put yourself in the place of the animal. not really, your just looking at an animal as an animal, a being much more lowly than you.

As for guns. There are pros and cons, no doubt. To me the fundamental point is though that we should not stop people from being able to protect themselves. I guess it is as always a security vs. freedom issue. And to me freedom wins.

your kidding right. the freedom to kill people is not a freedom at all. this is a perfect example of seeing how easily things come around. by giving one person a gun to PROTECT themself, you are allowing every1 to have a gun so that they ALL feal protected and keep a deterrant balance of power. ofcourse what it ends up being is that EVERY1 is put in danger and overall many many people are shot at random and die/suffer injury when none had to were the guns not present to begin with. it makes the security situation WORSE for every one, ur not really PROTECTING yourself, your giving the whole society slow poisoning. and guns are often used for offence as opposed to defence, an open gun culture raises that occurance. anyhow, what kinda freedom is a place where a man is afraid to walk on the streets or be invited into sum1's house, when he knows the other persona can legally shoot him for trespassing. the logic is as stupid as nuclear deterrance. only in nuclear deterrance, MAD never happens. in gun totting communities like the southern usa, it does. more people have died of guns there then both the world wars combined.

really, the ammendment for society to bear arms is one of the most stupid surviving thing in the us constitution. seeing as it only made sense when warring oppressive governments wanted to bend civillians to their will and the law was for civilians to be able to protect their livelyhood and freedom.

Originally posted by debbiejo
And if I may, why do we have to cook it and season it to make it taste good enough for us to eat?

There is this type of eagle that has brown spotted eggs. Now, they tested the eagle, and it seems to have a genetic disposition to pick up objects that are egg shaped and put them into their nest, sort of a survival thing to keep their eggs safe.

Now, one would assume that nature would make it so that if the eagle saw a brown spotted egg shaped object, it would respond MOST to that, as opposed to similar objects of other colours, seeing as it is exactly the same as the egg. What was found was that the eagle responded to green eggs far more than brown eggs, and more response to eggs with many more spots than their eggs would have naturally.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm a vegetarian, but not for humanitarian reasons. It's more health-related than anything.

Besides, life begets life, and death must occur for life to continue. In that sense, vegetarians aren't any more "humane" than everyone else. They're just eating something that can't run away or scream.

vegetarians aren't any more "humane" than everyone else. They're just eating something that can't run away or scream

exactly.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
...

LOL

"if you were an animal you wouldn't want to be eaten"

Can't you rant about poverty or inner city violence?

Originally posted by inimalist
There is this type of eagle that has brown spotted eggs. Now, they tested the eagle, and it seems to have a genetic disposition to pick up objects that are egg shaped and put them into their nest, sort of a survival thing to keep their eggs safe.

Now, one would assume that nature would make it so that if the eagle saw a brown spotted egg shaped object, it would respond MOST to that, as opposed to similar objects of other colours, seeing as it is exactly the same as the egg. What was found was that the eagle responded to green eggs far more than brown eggs, and more response to eggs with many more spots than their eggs would have naturally.

Originally posted by debbiejo
😑

ya, its really weird

There are many, many, MANY, benefits to eating cooked meat over raw, but the idea that it "tastes" better (which is of course subjective and could of course be cultural) is strange.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
vegetarians aren't any more "humane" than everyone else. They're just eating something that can't run away or scream

exactly.

no. they have no brains. they have no higher conciousness under reasonable doubt form all the evidence we have. if your talking about a SOUL than i lose ofcourse, but i doubt it exists in the traditional sense. and there is no evidence of it in plant. its the killing of an ENTITY that i feal is terrible. not just robbing some cells off of sumthing which has shown no sign of self awareness.

animals do have that. and plants are a safer choice. ideally though, we shud be one day able to inorganically synthesise our food.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, its really weird

There are many, many, MANY, benefits to eating cooked meat over raw, but the idea that it "tastes" better (which is of course subjective and could of course be cultural) is strange.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no. they have no brains. they have no higher conciousness under reasonable doubt form all the evidence we have. if your talking about a SOUL than i lose ofcourse, but i doubt it exists in the traditional sense. and there is no evidence of it in plant. its the killing of an ENTITY that i feal is terrible. not just robbing some cells off of sumthing which has shown no sign of self awareness.

animals do have that. and plants are a safer choice. ideally though, we shud be one day able to inorganically synthesise our food.

LOL

but you have evidence of higher consciousness in animals, or of the idea that animals are not just collections of cells or have any degree of "self awareness".

You have grossly overestimated to cognitive capacity of anything under a chimp

Originally posted by debbiejo
So, this wanting and eating meat of dead things in the raw is natural for us?

lol
yes?

So, this is for the evolving of the species?

So, plants are in a higher evolutionary state and so, we eat them?

Argument about heating being an unnatural aspect of true nutrients:

Heat is important:
Heat does change the chemical composition of certain foods, it breaks the chemical bonds/chains and sometimes, creates a different benefit. Heating may extract one/several aspects of a chemical, while destroying another aspect within that same combination (basic chemistry, chemical reactions).

Adding other food/herbs to it also changes it's chemical reaction, esp. when heated, the end result being a different chemical and therefore, a different benefit.

Heat isn't only for meat/fish, some veggies are better off cooked/fire (potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, beets, plantain, etc.).

Again, different chemical benefit once it's through a heating process.

Heat as a form of cleansing veggies of harmful fungus, bacteria, and other parasitic entities:

Even when eating plants/herbs/veggies/fruits, they have to be washed very well.

Eating fish is the same way, there are certain herbs/veggies that clean out any "normal" bacteria that may come with the fish/meat, but again, sometimes, it really needs to be cooked to expel pro-active bacterias.

Food combination is important, not just a singular value:

There are reasons why it's important to eat foods in certain combination, instead of eating it alone. The only food I know of that is a complete food, is milk. Milk is protein, sugar, fat, with vitamins and minerals all in one sitting (that's a singular food source), that's a complete meal, and we have to pasteurize our milk/heat the milk to avoid parasitic bacteria.

It's all about avoiding too much bacteria via an imbalance of pH. There's a reason we eat sour veggies or vinegar with meat or protein, or else, yogurt or a food with high metabolic bacteria. It's to counter balance the acidity that may come with certain bacteria or fungus.

In conclusion, we can avoid parasitic or opportunistic bacterias/microbes by eating certain foods/herbs together, heating the food source, or washing it. But sometimes, washing it doesn't do the trick. And other times, you have to make sure your body is in good shape, b/c raw meat/fish can be dangerous even for a robust person. PLANTS can be dangerous, there are raw plants and mushrooms you do NOT want to eat, cooked or not, the chemicals in that plant is toxic and will kill or harm anyone.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is this type of eagle that has brown spotted eggs. Now, they tested the eagle, and it seems to have a genetic disposition to pick up objects that are egg shaped and put them into their nest, sort of a survival thing to keep their eggs safe.

Now, one would assume that nature would make it so that if the eagle saw a brown spotted egg shaped object, it would respond MOST to that, as opposed to similar objects of other colours, seeing as it is exactly the same as the egg. What was found was that the eagle responded to green eggs far more than brown eggs, and more response to eggs with many more spots than their eggs would have naturally.

So, is this what you mean:

The eagle has the awareness to protect it's young, so therefore, it's young is a product of that cycle and seeks its own protection as a result of AWARENESS.

Eating eggs/meat would be like eating off of an entity that has the idea of protecting it's offspring, which is similar to SOME humans. Since this is an aspect of SOME humans, it is on the same level, so therefore, we shouldn't eat eggs/meat.

Maybe you are too evolved?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Maybe you are too evolved?

Really?
I don't that word, evolve, it sounds like we are racing to something.

What I meant is that maybe you see things that others cannot yet comprehend.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well, my opinion is that people eat to survive. And it is what you eat that contributes to that. True? Wouldn't it be true that you need certain nutrients to evolve? If so, then what are you getting from raw meat. And if I may, why do we have to cook it and season it to make it taste good enough for us to eat? If it is indeed so beneficial, then why not eat it raw.

Just a secondary phenomenon that we use nowadays.

Now to leonheart:

"ur forgetting though that death means the end of everything including your SELF"

I am not. In fact that is my argument for why death might be more desirable.

"sussation of suffering is great, but it has no meaning without a SELF being present. save your life first, then try and get rid of the suffering in it. without a life there is no point to getting rid of suffering. you get rid of suffering FOR your life."

That is incorrect. As I said there are many scenarios where you would get rid of the suffering just for the sake of not suffering, in the process giving up being alive. Your premise is that life is the most treasured thing we have, that is not accepted by everyone. Lets try to argument from a more objective view.

"no, i beleive those people are not using their better judgement and avoid the problem or do not think about it. we can not let practices like slavery and genocide continue simply on the argument that some people tdo not think it wrong for such things to happen. i said we have the ABILITY to see what is right and wrong, if people do not use that ability, does not mean it isnt there."

That is very subjective though. To you animals suffering obviously is wrong. To many others it is not. How can you be sure that it is wrong and that all that do not think it is wrong don't use their judgement.

I would argue that there are pros that to me outweish the cons of animals suffering and dying.

"you honestly expect me to beleive that you put yourself in the position and found out that your life was not worth more than the enjoyement{not guarunteed} of a few mouthfulls of meat for a human being?"

That is not what I said though, is it?

The likelihood that I would be the one dying for that is small. Very small. Besides the animal doesn't have the same amount of self-consciousness that I have.

We are not all equal. That is a fact.

"non sense my friend. you didnt put YOURSELF in the place of the animal or a loved one. you just looked from your own current perspective and thought "as i am NOW, can i sleep with eating meat?" and wrote the answer to that. how about an easier example, one not so extreme, would you kill another human in the absence of livestock simply to satisfy your taste buds even in the presence of vegetarian alternatives?"

Because that was the point.

Of course I wouldn't want to be eaten, but that does not matter really. I won't be eaten. There are many other arguments to be considered. Why do you think that whether you want to be eaten or not has any bearing in this conversation?

"that is because you have not put yourself in the place of the animal. not really, your just looking at an animal as an animal, a being much more lowly than you. "

Actually, that is not correct. I do not see animals as lower. I see them as a different species that I personally have no moral obligation to. I can include them in my moral thinking if I want, but I choose not to. Why should I?

"your kidding right. the freedom to kill people is not a freedom at all. this is a perfect example of seeing how easily things come around. by giving one person a gun to PROTECT themself, you are allowing every1 to have a gun so that they ALL feal protected and keep a deterrant balance of power. ofcourse what it ends up being is that EVERY1 is put in danger and overall many many people are shot at random and die/suffer injury when none had to were the guns not present to begin with. it makes the security situation WORSE for every one, ur not really PROTECTING yourself, your giving the whole society slow poisoning. and guns are often used for offence as opposed to defence, an open gun culture raises that occurance. anyhow, what kinda freedom is a place where a man is afraid to walk on the streets or be invited into sum1's house, when he knows the other persona can legally shoot him for trespassing. the logic is as stupid as nuclear deterrance. only in nuclear deterrance, MAD never happens. in gun totting communities like the southern usa, it does. more people have died of guns there then both the world wars combined.

really, the ammendment for society to bear arms is one of the most stupid surviving thing in the us constitution. seeing as it only made sense when warring oppressive governments wanted to bend civillians to their will and the law was for civilians to be able to protect their livelyhood and freedom."

As I said, you only see one side. And you are very stubborn about it too. Also, killing is not condemned by allowing people to own guns.

Anyhow, that's topic of another thread, but do you think you could look at topics from a less subjective and biased POV?

am sure there are evolutionary explanations. I am not really familiar with the subject, but let me throw a totally unfounded theory out there, that would explain it to me. I assume there were evolutionary advantages in preferring one taste over another back in the good old days...coincidently we are nowadays able to focus our food in such a way that it can increase the pleasure immensely. I figure it is similar to a woman possibly preferring a knobbed condom

Oh, yeah, the nutritional value of food is Euell to a condom.......lol HAHAAAHHAH.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am sure there are evolutionary explanations. I am not really familiar with the subject, but let me throw a totally unfounded theory out there, that would explain it to me. I assume there were evolutionary advantages in prefering one taste over another back in the good old days...coincidently we are nowadays able to focus our food in such a way that it can increase the pleasure immensely. I figure it is similar to a woman possibly prefering a knobbed condom despite its complete lack of evolutionary advantages.

Just a secondary phenomenon that we use nowadays.

Now to leonheart:
[b]
"ur forgetting though that death means the end of everything including your SELF"

I am not. In fact that is my argument for why death might be more desirable.

"sussation of suffering is great, but it has no meaning without a SELF being present. save your life first, then try and get rid of the suffering in it. without a life there is no point to getting rid of suffering. you get rid of suffering FOR your life."

That is incorrect. As I said there are many scenarios where you would get rid of the suffering just for the sake of not suffering, in the process giving up being alive. Your premise is that life is the most treasured thing we have, that is not accepted by everyone. Lets try to argument from a more objective view.

"no, i beleive those people are not using their better judgement and avoid the problem or do not think about it. we can not let practices like slavery and genocide continue simply on the argument that some people tdo not think it wrong for such things to happen. i said we have the ABILITY to see what is right and wrong, if people do not use that ability, does not mean it isnt there."

That is very subjective though. To you animals suffering obviously is wrong. To many others it is not. How can you be sure that it is wrong and that all that do not think it is wrong don't use their judgement.

I would argue that there are pros that to me outweish the cons of animals suffering and dying.

"you honestly expect me to beleive that you put yourself in the position and found out that your life was not worth more than the enjoyement{not guarunteed} of a few mouthfulls of meat for a human being?"

That is not what I said though, is it?

The likelihood that I would be the one dying for that is small. Very small. Besides the animal doesn't have the same amount of self-consciousness that I have.

We are not all equal. That is a fact.

"non sense my friend. you didnt put YOURSELF in the place of the animal or a loved one. you just looked from your own current perspective and thought "as i am NOW, can i sleep with eating meat?" and wrote the answer to that. how about an easier example, one not so extreme, would you kill another human in the absence of livestock simply to satisfy your taste buds even in the presence of vegetarian alternatives?"

Because that was the point.

Of course I wouldn't want to be eaten, but that does not matter really. I won't be eaten. There are many other arguments to be considered. Why do you think that whether you want to be eaten or not has any bearing in this conversation?

"that is because you have not put yourself in the place of the animal. not really, your just looking at an animal as an animal, a being much more lowly than you. "

Actually, that is not correct. I do not see animals as lower. I see them as a different species that I personally have no moral obligation to. I can include them in my moral thinking if I want, but I choose not to. Why should I?

"your kidding right. the freedom to kill people is not a freedom at all. this is a perfect example of seeing how easily things come around. by giving one person a gun to PROTECT themself, you are allowing every1 to have a gun so that they ALL feal protected and keep a deterrant balance of power. ofcourse what it ends up being is that EVERY1 is put in danger and overall many many people are shot at random and die/suffer injury when none had to were the guns not present to begin with. it makes the security situation WORSE for every one, ur not really PROTECTING yourself, your giving the whole society slow poisoning. and guns are often used for offence as opposed to defence, an open gun culture raises that occurance. anyhow, what kinda freedom is a place where a man is afraid to walk on the streets or be invited into sum1's house, when he knows the other persona can legally shoot him for trespassing. the logic is as stupid as nuclear deterrance. only in nuclear deterrance, MAD never happens. in gun totting communities like the southern usa, it does. more people have died of guns there then both the world wars combined.

really, the ammendment for society to bear arms is one of the most stupid surviving thing in the us constitution. seeing as it only made sense when warring oppressive governments wanted to bend civillians to their will and the law was for civilians to be able to protect their livelyhood and freedom."

As I said, you only see one side. And you are very stubborn about it too. Also, killing is not condemned by allowing people to own guns.

Anyhow, that's topic of another thread, but do you think you could look at topics from a less subjective and biased POV? [/B]

To you animals suffering obviously is wrong. To many others it is not. How can you be sure that it is wrong and that all that do not think it is wrong don't use their judgement.

YOU SPEAK FROM THE HEART OF LIBERTY. I can respect vegetarian thinking, but they may not return the favor. In a spiritual sense, (with respect to veggie-heads) is the idea of the circle of life. They are focused with wanting humans to pay a price for not understanding, namely, wishing punishment on those who do not see things from their point of view. Ppl who are into this kind of lifestyle are very much bullish in a spiritual way and otherwise. They put a lot of morality into their position, and are persuaded that they can punish or harm another human being based on that moral high ground. In their mind, they've "achieved" a form of paralleling awareness, and meat eaters don't own up to it, so therefore, they are better and others should suffer the consequences of being ignorant. Even though, that same eagle, the one that own it's awareness to program the color of it's eggs into a camaflog of brown or green, will eat a fish, alive, it's suppose to be free of any form of human consumption. But, the eagle is aware, even though, the eagle eats meat. See how that works?

It's usually humans screwing up humans, in energy, in psyche, as well as in the physical world. We do it to each other.

Liberty is suppose to afford us some freedoms, based on our own consciousness, not based on the moral obligations of another unless it's violating their property.

For their own satisfaction, these folks would want to see you as an animal or worse and suffer the same fate, instead of resting on the fact that ppl think differently, and realities or subjective realities are important to everyone.

They really do believe that ppl can become animals in the next cycle, so they are plagued with fear and what some may call, respect. Out of this "respect", they do not eat meat, and feel they are more righteous then those who kill off another life-form which, in their angle, has "awareness" properties.

Don't forget that we see a dot and a line based on our perspective or angle (90 deg from each other). As soon as we change our angle, we see things differently, it doesn't make either symbol correct. We can only decide which form is correct based on both application and law, a particular order that was agreed upon.

- = line = one perspective
. = dot = another

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh, yeah, the nutritional value of food is Euell to a condom.......lol HAHAAAHHAH.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy