Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

I don't know, how much it is true but mentioned here:

The Natural Human Diet
Human Evolution and the Rise of Meat-Heavy Diets

If it’s so unhealthy and unnatural for humans to eat meat, why did our ancestors sometimes turn to flesh for sustenance? During most of our evolutionary history, we were largely vegetarian: Plant foods, such as yams, made up the bulk of our ancestors’ diet. The more frequent addition of modest amounts of meat to the early human diet came with the discovery of fire, which allowed us to lower the risk of being sickened or killed by parasites in meat. This practice didn’t turn our ancestors into carnivores but rather allowed early humans to survive during periods in which plant foods were unavailable.

Modern Humans
Until recently, only the wealthiest people could afford to feed, raise, and slaughter animals for meat, and less wealthy and poor people ate mostly plant foods. Consequently, prior to the 20th century, only the rich were plagued routinely with diseases such as heart disease and obesity. Since 1950, the per capita consumption of meat has almost doubled. Now that animal flesh has become relatively cheap and is easily available (thanks to the cruel, cost-cutting practices of factory farming), deadly ailments such as heart disease, strokes, cancer, and obesity have spread to people across the socio-economic spectrum. And as the Western lifestyle spills over into less developed areas in Asia and Africa, people there, too, have begun to suffer and die from diseases associated with meat-based diets.
https://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/

 

[JayUtah]

Do you want to impress that they don't feel pain as we feel?

No, I didn't say anything about feeling pain. The premise is whether they experience the same emotions and think about relationships the same way we do. They don't.

Don't they have natural right to life because nursed by others?

This isn't about rights. This is about whether animals factually have the cognitive abilities you ascribe to them. They don't.

Don't they have right to have emotions, fear, pain and right to believe their elders & nursers?

this isn't about rights. This is about whether they are physically capable of the abilities you have attributed to them. They aren't.

Further evidence: you can do google search for youtube live presentation by it; "This How American Treat,Kill Animals No Mercy". I hesitate to give link.

Yes, the radical animal rights movement is based on the same fallacy you're committing here, which is the assumption that animals have the same emotional depth and cognitive abilities as humans. So we've arrived at the point where you have no actual evidence, but you have some sympathy for a bunch of mush-headed nonsense.

Humans have domesticated animals for food for millennia. Humans are omnivores. Deal with it.

 

[Mojo]

Yes thanks. Spell check. Are We humans not somewhat above all other species of beings? Therefore so prominent. So Senior most or eldest.

No. The "great chain of being" is a prescientific, religious idea with no basis in reality.

 

[Kumar]

No, I didn't say anything about feeling pain. The premise is whether they experience the same emotions and think about relationships the same way we do. They don't.



This isn't about rights. This is about whether animals factually have the cognitive abilities you ascribe to them. They don't.



this isn't about rights. This is about whether they are physically capable of the abilities you have attributed to them. They aren't.



Yes, the radical animal rights movement is based on the same fallacy you're committing here, which is the assumption that animals have the same emotional depth and cognitive abilities as humans. So we've arrived at the point where you have no actual evidence, but you have some sympathy for a bunch of mush-headed nonsense.

Humans have domesticated animals for food for millennia. Humans are omnivores. Deal with it.

As you say in you. Look at my next post where Peta has indicated history. However that may also be just emotional or NGO specific view.

 

[JayUtah]

As you say in you. Look at my next post where Peta has indicated history. However that may also be just emotional or NGO specific view.

It's cute that you believe PETA on the subject of ethical treatment of animals. They're radical animal rights activists. They are not only hypocrites, but they are committing the same fallacy you are. That others share your delusion is not evidence that it is true. If you wanted to mount a political evangelism of vegetarianism, you could have saved us three pages of pretending that's not what you were about to do.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry. Simply, Are those animals not Idiots who misunderstand their owners by over believing them, who initially nurse & love them but slaughter ultimately? Can't say, if those poor animals also feel that their owners being human are senior most among all beings so will consider them like guardian or parents?

Well, obviously you can say it, but you shouldn't because it's nonsense.

 

[Mojo]

No. You have shown no evidence that the animals you describe are capable of that level of cognition. You are simply assuming that animals have the same cognitive and emotional development as humans.

And simultaneously claiming that humans are "somewhat above all other species of beings".

 

[bruto]

Truth, Rational, need & greed and Selfish interests are different terms.

I'm really curious here. Are you, perhaps, responding to the wrong posts? Nothing you say seems to relate in even a vaguely remote way to what it seems to respond to. If I were trying to guarantee that my responses could not be connected I don't think I could do a better job.

 

[sackett]

...You're assumptively anthropomorphizing them.

Oh Jay. In a Kumar thread?

 

[Mojo]

May it not be happening at your place but definately happening at my place.

No, that's special pleading. You've shown no evidence that the food animals with which you're personally acquainted are capable of the degree of cognition you attribute to them.

Remember, Kumar also claims that the laws of physics are different at his place, in that while homoeopathy doesn't work here ("A&F", as he puts it) it works there.

 

[Mojo]

It's cute that you believe PETA on the subject of ethical treatment of animals. They're radical animal rights activists. They are not only hypocrites, but they are committing the same fallacy you are. That others share your delusion is not evidence that it is true. If you wanted to mount a political evangelism of vegetarianism, you could have saved us three pages of pretending that's not what you were about to do.

He doesn't want us to eat "botanical beings" either:

I think, similar observations can also be felt in case of botanical beings. They go on offering their products(all parts) by new growth inspite of fact, all parts are cut/plucked and used by humans.

Idiocy of plants! Why they not leave when so badly mistreated?

 

[fromdownunder]

He doesn't want us to eat "botanical beings" either:


Idiocy of plants! Why they not leave when so badly mistreated?

"A green salad," said Arthur emphatically.

"A green salad?" said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.

"Are you going to tell me," said Arthur, "that I shouldn't have green salad?"

"Well," said the animal, "I know many vegetables that are very clear on that point.

Norm

 

[bruto]

I don't know, how much it is true but mentioned here:

If you don't know then perhaps it would behoove you to find out, preferably before posting it, and certainly before using it to uphold any ideas.

 

[Kumar]

It's cute that you believe PETA on the subject of ethical treatment of animals. They're radical animal rights activists. They are not only hypocrites, but they are committing the same fallacy you are. That others share your delusion is not evidence that it is true. If you wanted to mount a political evangelism of vegetarianism, you could have saved us three pages of pretending that's not what you were about to do.

I tend to look both sides. To look both sides, I need to look and talk on both sides. To me voilence is voilence toward all beings--zoological or botanical esp when posterity is also destroyed alongwith and esp when it is other than for basic need. So nothing is one sidedness from my POV.

 

[Kumar]

I'm really curious here. Are you, perhaps, responding to the wrong posts? Nothing you say seems to relate in even a vaguely remote way to what it seems to respond to. If I were trying to guarantee that my responses could not be connected I don't think I could do a better job.

Multiplicity in POVs can be there for every partial thing.

 

[Mojo]

I tend to look both sides.

You are mistaken.

 

[fagin]

I tend to look both sides. ...

"I've looked at life from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all"

(J. Mitchell)

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I think it's a mixture of compulsion and idiocy. Not sure about the animals and plants

 

[Kumar]

Human-Animal Bond
Human-Animal BondThe human-animal bond is a mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship between people and animals that is influenced by behaviors that are essential to the health and well-being of both. This includes, but is not limited to, emotional, psychological, and physical interactions of people, animals, and the environment.
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reference/human-animal-bond/Pages/Human-Animal-Bond-AVMA.aspx

Above suggests "mutually beneficial" relationship--somewhat symbiotic. Does it followed?

 

[Kumar]

I think it's a mixture of compulsion and idiocy. Not sure about the animals and plants

Also look like it. But whether compulsion not go when they set free?