Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

@HHFOV: You eat vegetables, too...

1) Non-human animals already eat non-human animals, so to say we aren't supposed to is a double standard.

1. Humans understand morals. Other animals don't have enough of an understanding of morals, or access to nutritionally complete vegetarian food. Although strides have recently been made with dog, cat, etc. food, other species obviously can't get that in the food.

They have no central nervous system, therefore, no one gives a crap about eating plants.

Myrrh wrote:

@HHFOV: You eat vegetables, too...

Right, which is way I'm saying that since the murder of those animals is going to occur anyway, either by field animals killed in harvest or by meat slaughter, there's really no use trying to avoid killing them since it's going to happen anyway. Not to mention that humans are naturally omnivorous.

If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants?

It's totally unrealistic. Do you know how much money is made off meat? I sure as heck don't, but I'm gonna bet it's a whole lot. And as long as people are making lots of money off it, it's gonna stay.

The first argument I'm going to make against "humans are naturally omnivorous" is that a vegan diet has been proven healthier than an omnivorous one;

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants?

Humans ARE animals. And all animals are equal. But animals aren't plants; they know they're alive, and they have feelings and they suffer. They can think. Brains.

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants?

Humans ARE animals. And all animals are equal. But animals aren't plants.

Marshmallow Roast wrote:

The first argument I'm going to make against "humans are naturally omnivorous" is that a vegan diet has been proven healthier than an omnivorous one;

A vegan diet? Vegetarian diets seem like they'd be pretty healthy, but a vegan diet is low on some vitamins, calcium (yum, milk), and omega-3 fatty acids, which are great for the brain. It's not necessarily bad for you, but it's not the best diet you can have, either.

Quote:

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants?

Humans ARE animals. And all animals are equal. But animals aren't plants; they know they're alive, and they have feelings and they suffer. They can think. Brains.

Not all animals have brains.

Marshmallow Roast wrote:

ed 'lim' smilde wrote:

If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants?

Humans ARE animals. And all animals are equal. But animals aren't plants.

But we're all organisms; we're all life. Shouldn't all life be treated equally?

3. Omega-3 fatty acids are present in vegetable sources. You just need to make sure you get enough of them.

A vegan diet needs nutritional maintenance, but that's what any diet should have, really. If you eat enough of the right foods, it truly is the best diet you can have.

Also, sponges don't have brains. Have you ever eaten a sponge?
...
Something that doesn't even know it's alive... it doesn't matter how you treat that. Again, you can't abuse broccoli. So no, not all life has to be treated equally.

No, I haven't eaten a sponge (I've used one...), but my point was that you said animals are above plants because they have brains, which isn't true, because some don't. And even still, how come you can distinguish between plants and animals by brains and awareness, but not between humans and animals? Humans have even more awareness and brain capacity - that's why they can have morals in the first place.

It's not the amount of awareness that an animal has. All it needs is to have some awareness, and it's entitled to rights.

Marshmallow Roast wrote:

It's not the amount of awareness that an animal has. All it needs is to have some awareness, and it's entitled to rights.

They wouldn't be 'rights', because there is no way to protect them. Unless you can teach everyone in the animal kingdom to stop killing each other and punish them if they do, they won't actually have 'rights'. The only ones you can really control are the humans, but if you only forced humans to follow these moral rules and not animals, you would have to assume humans are above the animals, which contradicts the reason you set up the morals in the first place.

If it is not morally wrong for a wolf to kill a sheep, then it is not morally wrong for a human to eat a chicken.

I'd be interested in some non-biased case studies in regards to this healthier diet thing. I do seem to remember Tiger (a former vegan) referring to some case studies he had read that indicated that meat in moderate quantities was actually good for you than a straight vegan diet.

I think the best diet would be something along the lines of the food pyramid, which suggests a few servings out of every food group.

If it is not morally wrong for a wolf to kill a sheep, then it is not morally wrong for a human to eat a chicken.

Everything I would say now has pretty much already been said. But I'll say part of it. Really, If it's already in the store, whether or not I eat the meat won't affect that the animal is dead. Might as well not let it go to waste. Eating plants hurt live things too, but nobody complains about that. Anyway, fish and deer we eat aren't eaten ALIVE like dolphins and wolves do, but there isn't some stupid ban on them or something. I eat meat. It's allowed in the Bible. I'm going to go have a burger. (It's nature!)

Author:	Mikes! [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:13 am ]
Post subject:
Hmph. I guess it just should be put onto the record that universal morals get me flustered.

Author:	HHFOV [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:24 am ]
Post subject:
Myrrh wrote: @HHFOV: You eat vegetables, too... Right, which is way I'm saying that since the murder of those animals is going to occur anyway, either by field animals killed in harvest or by meat slaughter, there's really no use trying to avoid killing them since it's going to happen anyway. Not to mention that humans are naturally omnivorous.

Author:	Acekirby [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:25 am ]
Post subject:
Said it before and I'll say it again. I love meat too much to stop eating it. It's good for you and delicious. HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: 1) Non-human animals already eat non-human animals, so to say we aren't supposed to is a double standard. Marshmallow Roast wrote: 1. Humans understand morals. Other animals don't have enough of an understanding of morals, or access to nutritionally complete vegetarian food. Although strides have recently been made with dog, cat, etc. food, other species obviously can't get that in the food. Wait, this is always the thing that bothers me about vegetarianism/veganism. People argue that humans are no superior to animals. By that logic, we should be acting exactly as they are. Which includes eating other animals. However, then they spring this "humans understand morals and can therefore choose" on us. Isn't having a moral understanding an immense difference between humans and animals? Doesn't it make us "superior" in a way? Animals don't seem to have morals. If we were equal, shouldn't we not have morals / take morality into account with our actions? P.S. Most likely I will rarely check this thread because I never fancied R&P, so if you're hoping for a big long argument you might be out of luck.

Author:	Simon Zeno [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:27 am ]
Post subject:
I believe I can refute all vegetarian arguments with this statement: Bacon goooooood.

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:29 am ]
Post subject:
Zoologist! wrote: They have no central nervous system, therefore, no one gives a crap about eating plants. The reason doesn't have anything to do with a central nervous system... you can kill an animal almost painlessly if you really want to (e.g., "putting a cat to sleep"). That probably wouldn't make Marshmallow Roast any happier... That's why I think the plant thing is a good argument against vegetarianism. If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants?

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

On Eating Meat... http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4034	Page 9 of 10

Author:	Marshmallow Roast [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:34 am ]
Post subject:
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote: Myrrh wrote: @HHFOV: You eat vegetables, too... Right, which is way I'm saying that since the murder of those animals is going to occur anyway, either by field animals killed in harvest or by meat slaughter, there's really no use trying to avoid killing them since it's going to happen anyway. Not to mention that humans are naturally omnivorous. No use? As I've said at least twice before, the first step is to get everyone eating a vegetarian diet. It may seem like an unrealistic goal, but regardless, it's what we're working towards, and it doesn't seem unrealistic to us. The only reason it seems unrealistic to you is because you don't want to change your diet. That's okay, but remember that I was once as vehement as you were. The first argument I'm going to make against "humans are naturally omnivorous" is that a vegan diet has been proven healthier than an omnivorous one; I can give you links if you aren't already aware. And isn't it natural for a creature to eat what's healthiest for it? If you're not convinced that it's natural for humans to be be veg*an, consider that the "natural" choice is not always the most ethical or most healthy. Consider all the "artificial" products that have helped mankind. Ace, an understanding of morals doesn't make us superior. I don't judge the value of a life by the logical capacity of the mind. And even if we were somehow superior, would that give us a right to eat and exploit them? I don't see it that way. ed 'lim' smilde wrote: If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants? Humans ARE animals. And all animals are equal. But animals aren't plants; they know they're alive, and they have feelings and they suffer. They can think. Brains. I would like to refute Zeno's argument with the following: "BUT THAT'S NOT REAL BACON!" Don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

Author:	Simon Zeno [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:41 am ]
Post subject:
It's totally unrealistic. Do you know how much money is made off meat? I sure as heck don't, but I'm gonna bet it's a whole lot. And as long as people are making lots of money off it, it's gonna stay.

Author:	Ju Ju Master [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:01 am ]
Post subject:
Marshmallow Roast wrote: ed 'lim' smilde wrote: If you can't say humans are above animals, how can you say animals are above plants? Humans ARE animals. And all animals are equal. But animals aren't plants. But we're all organisms; we're all life. Shouldn't all life be treated equally?

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:17 am ]
Post subject:
Marshmallow Roast wrote: 3. Omega-3 fatty acids are present in vegetable sources. You just need to make sure you get enough of them. The hard part is doing that while not over-dosing on anything you don't want too much of (like protein). Quote: A vegan diet needs nutritional maintenance, but that's what any diet should have, really. If you eat enough of the right foods, it truly is the best diet you can have. Quote: Also, sponges don't have brains. Have you ever eaten a sponge? ... Something that doesn't even know it's alive... it doesn't matter how you treat that. Again, you can't abuse broccoli. So no, not all life has to be treated equally. No, I haven't eaten a sponge (I've used one...), but my point was that you said animals are above plants because they have brains, which isn't true, because some don't. And even still, how come you can distinguish between plants and animals by brains and awareness, but not between humans and animals? Humans have even more awareness and brain capacity - that's why they can have morals in the first place.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:19 am ]
Post subject:
I'd be interested in some non-biased case studies in regards to this healthier diet thing. I do seem to remember Tiger (a former vegan) referring to some case studies he had read that indicated that meat in moderate quantities was actually good for you than a straight vegan diet. As regards the morality of eating animals, first off, nature has no inherent morality. In fact, nature itself demonstrates that, in order for some organisms to live, other organisms have to die. Animals hunt each other, so if you're going to establish a morality that dictates we should not kill animals, then I'd like to know on what basis we establish such a morality. I have a suspicion that it is based more on sentiment than on any demonstrable principle. If being aware of morality (assuming such a "morality" could be demonstrated) does not make us inherently better than lower animals, then how can refusing to follow that morality make us any worse? It is a double standard, and verbally dancing around it doesn't make it go away. If it is not morally wrong for a wolf to kill a sheep, then it is not morally wrong for a human to eat a chicken.

Author:	ChickenLeg [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:13 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: If it is not morally wrong for a wolf to kill a sheep, then it is not morally wrong for a human to eat a chicken. Boy, I said boy! You best not be eatin' me if y'all know what's good for y'all. Other than the joke, Didy pretty much sums it all up for me in that one simple sentence.

Author:	Mikes! [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:50 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: If it is not morally wrong for a wolf to kill a sheep, then it is not morally wrong for a human to eat a chicken. Right, but I find it ethically suspect for humans to own and control other animals as a means of capital or as a resource.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:17 am ]
Post subject:
On what basis, though? While I can appreciate your own sensibility in this matter, the problem is still the question: can such a morality be deduced from nature? If not, then one cannot claim absolutely that it is inherently unethical to herd cattle or hunt deer. Morally suspect, perhaps, at most.

Author:	this-guy [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:58 am ]
Post subject:
Here's a terrible, terrible, poorly animated, terrible video someone gave me terrible about this subject terrible. I'm just walking by...

Author:	Strong_Glad [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Uhh, okay you're right. Oops.

Page 9 of 10	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	ed 'lim' smilde [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: I'd be interested in some non-biased case studies in regards to this healthier diet thing. I do seem to remember Tiger (a former vegan) referring to some case studies he had read that indicated that meat in moderate quantities was actually good for you than a straight vegan diet. I would too. I did admit earlier that a vegan diet is healthier than a lot of people's, but I think the best diet would be something along the lines of the food pyramid, which suggests a few servings out of every food group.

Author:	ChickenLeg [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:
ed 'lim' smilde wrote: I think the best diet would be something along the lines of the food pyramid, which suggests a few servings out of every food group. Or the new "food pyramid", which is way too confusing to read and is based on individual needs. The new food pyramid sucks.

Author:	sci-fi greg [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:03 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: If it is not morally wrong for a wolf to kill a sheep, then it is not morally wrong for a human to eat a chicken. I do find it kind of funny, that in this thread, if a wolf does something, it's okay for you to do it, but in the hunting thread, animals are lesser than us. You don't think eating meat could just be a sign they are lesser?

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Greg, let me explain something that you seem to be missing: there is no inherent morality that can be deduced from nature. It is a point that has been addressed numerous times, both in that thread and here. As such, two things: (1) when a predator does what predators do, one cannot judge whether that predator is moral or immoral - it is simply doing what it does. And (2) if a predator cannot be judged for a moral action when it does what it does to survive, then how can a higher morality be imposed on human beings as a result? In short, if you can demonstrate from nature that there is an inherent morality that human beings are obligated to follow that other predators are not, then I will concede the point to you. Until that time, I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that it is morally wrong for a human being to eat meat. But there are philosophical, social, and religious reasons why we do not treat human beings as prey, and I adhere to those reasons. But since those reasons do not obligate us to the same responsibilities concerning other animals, I do not apply them to other animals. To me, killing a human being is wrong; killing a wolf that's attacking your sheep is not, and neither is killing one of those sheep to feed your family. And I see no reason why such a double standard is wrong, either. After all, in order to establish a moral responsibility to treat other animals the same, there would have to be a demonstrable inherent morality to nature, and without one, you cannot say that it is morally wrong to favor human beings over other animals. But as far as a wolf attacking sheep - or any other predator attacking any other animal for that matter - I may not hold that animal to be morally responsible, but that does not mean I do not see the pragmatics behind removing such a predator if it is a danger. It would be, after all, a matter of survival - and survival seems to be the only moral imperative that nature cares about.

Author:	Zoologist! [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Hopefully this will enlighten you on the subject of meat... or at least pork.

Author:	Strong_Glad [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:40 am ]
Post subject:
Everything I would say now has pretty much already been said. But I'll say part of it. Really, If it's already in the store, whether or not I eat the meat won't affect that the animal is dead. Might as well not let it go to waste. Eating plants hurt live things too, but nobody complains about that. Anyway, fish and deer we eat aren't eaten ALIVE like dolphins and wolves do, but there isn't some stupid ban on them or something. I eat meat. It's allowed in the Bible. I'm going to go have a burger. (It's nature!)

Author:	Lunar Jesty [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Strong_Glad wrote: Everything I would say now has pretty much already been said. But I'll say part of it. Really, If it's already in the store, whether or not I eat the meat won't affect that the animal is dead. Might as well not let it go to waste. Eating plants hurt live things too, but nobody complains about that. Anyway, fish and deer we eat aren't eaten ALIVE like dolphins and wolves do, but there isn't some stupid ban on them or something. I eat meat. It's allowed in the Bible. I'm going to go have a burger. (It's nature!) Hey, I have no problem eating meat, but isn't that logic a little faulty? If you buy a bunch of steaks at the store, it will run out of steaks that much quicker, meaning they have to order more that much quicker, meaning more animals get killed.

Author:	Schmelen [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, it'd probably make sense if we all eventually stopped eating meat. I mean, it's not like we depend on meat like we used to. It'd probably be healthier for everyone too.