Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[sackett]

Yes, but

It has great relevance with that secondary naturals can be false. Even though, we feel, we are Buffalo for million trillion years, we can bot become Buffalo.

Could you please paraphrase that?

 

[Kumar]

Could you please paraphrase that?

We can not become Buffalo even then we feel it for million of years. It means, we can not adapt it. By secodary natural, I mean secondary evolving or adaptation.

 

[sackett]

We can not become Buffalo even then we feel it for million of years. It means, we can not adapt it. By secodary natural, I mean secondary evolving or adaptation.

Could you please paraphrase that?

 

[Kumar]

Could you please paraphrase that?

We can not change the bàsic nature except slight modification by evolutionary process.

 

[Mojo]

It has great relevance with that secondary naturals can be false. Even though, we feel, we are Buffalo for million trillion years, we can bot become Buffalo.

We can not become Buffalo even then we feel it for million of years. It means, we can not adapt it. By secodary natural, I mean secondary evolving or adaptation.

We can not change the bàsic nature except slight modification by evolutionary process.

Then why do you think that the truth of other propositions can be determined according to whether a lot of people have believed them for a long time?

 

[Kumar]

Then why do you think that the truth of other propositions can be determined according to whether a lot of people have believed them for a long time?

Depends, whether new or ín continuance to basic nature.

 

[Mojo]

Depends, whether new or ín continuance to basic nature.

Let me guess: "in continuance to basic nature" is something to do with an "inharent sense of right and wrong", right?

Buffalo have existed for millions of years. How do you know that none of them have been people?

 

[MRC_Hans]

How we can say it best when it can still be modified--added or subtracted, even with potential harms?

Suppose you are to travel across a country. You have a map. It is not a perfect map because it is not very detailed, so it only shows greater roads and cities, etc.

It is, however, the best map you have. Is it possible to use it to travel?

Hans

 

[JayUtah]

Someone should count how many pages have gone by without even hinting at the original topic of the ethics of keeping food animals.

 

[Kumar]

Someone should count how many pages have gone by without even hinting at the original topic of the ethics of keeping food animals.

Thanks.
I am looking, what can be the human basic diet i.e. of our primatives, If mónkey, apes, was it taking, tree prodúcts? It is noted, prime natural hold more value than secondary matural/evolútion. Domestication and farmings are purposeful secondary àdaptàtións in self interests not primary.

 

[Kumar]

Suppose you are to travel across a country. You have a map. It is not a perfect map because it is not very detailed, so it only shows greater roads and cities, etc.

It is, however, the best map you have. Is it possible to use it to travel?

Hans

Once ,I had very bad experiance by using google map. It suggested shortest route but that road was so ódd, we could reach two hour late and with lot of crowd and jerks. Then we asked ftom a locals, how this road suggested for so big tóurist destínation. He laughed snd asked, why you took this road when a byepass was there before 40 kms. Yes, some more distance but road was very good, you could had reached much early and comfortably.
So the practical approach was to keep on askíng from locals and reach destination better than using map. It is cultural system.

 

[Kumar]

Let me guess: "in continuance to basic nature" is something to do with an "inharent sense of right and wrong", right?

Buffalo have existed for millions of years. How do you know that none of them have been people?

Any inheritance is from basic or secondary, matter. We need to find it from evolution history otherwise from our basic inherited instincts. Like, probably, our prime primitives , living in wild places, appear to be taking plants, trees and other natural veg products but we base secondary natural products which may included meat & other cooked foods.

 

[bruto]

Thanks.
I am looking, what can be the human basic diet i.e. of our primatives, If mónkey, apes, was it taking, tree prodúcts? It is noted, prime natural hold more value than secondary matural/evolútion. Domestication and farmings are purposeful secondary àdaptàtións in self interests not primary.

Maybe before you stick us all with tree products you should find out what our primitive ancestors actually ate, and what our primitive cousins still eat.

It is true that we're alone in domestication, except for ants. Ooops.

You still have not addressed one of the unfortunate dissonances in your discourse, which is that if a so-called "unnatural" practice has had an influence on our evolutionary process, how can we now be "natural" without it? We would have to devolve on purpose, and that, by itself, is also not "natural."

It is believed, at least by some, that cooking is part of what allowed people to evolve into the people who now exist. If cooking is part of what being human is about, then the choice to abjure cooking is, in some sense, "unnatural," no matter how good an idea it might be.

 

[Kumar]

Maybe before you stick us all with tree products you should find out what our primitive ancestors actually ate, and what our primitive cousins still eat.

I already tried and got it. Another was PETA link, which I quoted previously.

The story begins over 55 million years ago, after angiosperm forests spread across the earth during the late Cretaceous (94 million to 64 million years ago). At that time, some small, insect-eating mammal, which may have resembled a tree shrew, climbed into the trees, presumably in search of pollen-distributing insects. But its descendants came to rely substantially on edible plant parts from the canopy, a change that set the stage for the emergence of the primate order.
Natural selection strongly favors traits that enhance the efficiency of foraging. Hence, as plant foods assumed increasing importance over evolutionary time (thousands, indeed millions, of years), selection gradually gave rise to the suite of traits now regarded as characteristic of primates. Most of these traits facilitate movement and foraging in trees. For instance, selection yielded hands well suited for grasping slender branches and manipulating found delicacies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diet-and-primate-evolution-2006-06/

It is true that we're alone in domestication, except for ants. Ooops.

Is it domestication or social living?

You still have not addressed one of the unfortunate dissonances in your discourse, which is that if a so-called "unnatural" practice has had an influence on our evolutionary process, how can we now be "natural" without it? We would have to devolve on purpose, and that, by itself, is also not "natural."

It is believed, at least by some, that cooking is part of what allowed people to evolve into the people who now exist. If cooking is part of what being human is about, then the choice to abjure cooking is, in some sense, "unnatural," no matter how good an idea it might be.

Actually, above made me to rethink and redefine natural as, primary natural and secondary natural. In "Inherent sense of right or wrong" a definition of natural, what Inherent should actually mean? Whether it is Inherentancy since basic level or also at some intermediate gross level--i.e secondary adaptations?

If we consider most Prime levels of our evolution, we may need to take, energy & molecular levels and food of these, if we need to take at gross human's body level, we nay need to check food for these.

 

[bruto]

I already tried and got it. Another was PETA link, which I quoted previously.




Is it domestication or social living?



Actually, above made me to rethink and redefine natural as, primary natural and secondary natural. In "Inherent sense of right or wrong" a definition of natural, what Inherent should actually mean? Whether it is Inherentancy since basic level or also at some intermediate gross level--i.e secondary adaptations?

If we consider most Prime levels of our evolution, we may need to take, energy & molecular levels and food of these, if we need to take at gross human's body level, we nay need to check food for these.

A PETA link, from someone who, a little while back, was covering his tracks for having posted a disputable PETA link by saying he doesn't actually cafe for PETA....in any case does it say what you think it says? It says our primate ancestors lived in trees. Does it say what they ate? Does it say what our primate cousins eat? and

Of course if you redefine natural to suit your preconceived idea of what you want it to mean, it will mean what you want it to. A flimsy preconceived idea of what constitutes "inherent" leads to a flimsy preconceived idea of what is "pprimary and secondary," and after all these pages and all this discussion we're right back to the conflation of "natural" with "moral" even though there is no morality in nature.

It's hopeless, isn't it?

 

[Kumar]

A PETA link, from someone who, a little while back, was covering his tracks for having posted a disputable PETA link by saying he doesn't actually cafe for PETA....in any case does it say what you think it says? It says our primate ancestors lived in trees. Does it say what they ate? Does it say what our primate cousins eat? and

Of course if you redefine natural to suit your preconceived idea of what you want it to mean, it will mean what you want it to. A flimsy preconceived idea of what constitutes "inherent" leads to a flimsy preconceived idea of what is "pprimary and secondary," and after all these pages and all this discussion we're right back to the conflation of "natural" with "moral" even though there is no morality in nature.

It's hopeless, isn't it?

Why it can't be possible, one is wrong at some point but right on many other points and I base that right part only? It is not right to blacklist anyone on just one point ignoring right points. Do you know Dolly sheep was also euthanized.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Do you know why she was euthanized?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Once ,I had very bad experiance by using google map. It suggested shortest route but that road was so ódd, we could reach two hour late and with lot of crowd and jerks. Then we asked ftom a locals, how this road suggested for so big tóurist destínation. He laughed snd asked, why you took this road when a byepass was there before 40 kms. Yes, some more distance but road was very good, you could had reached much early and comfortably.
So the practical approach was to keep on askíng from locals and reach destination better than using map. It is cultural system.

You didn't answer my question.



Hans

 

[bruto]

Why it can't be possible, one is wrong at some point but right on many other points and I base that right part only? It is not right to blacklist anyone on just one point ignoring right points. Do you know Dolly sheep was also euthanized.

Of course it's possible for someone to be wrong one time and right the other. But when you don't have another source for judgment, the judgement of the intermittently wrong is unreliable. Peta may be right about some things, but they have been shown to be unreliable (at best) in many instances. If Peta is the best link you can get you're in trouble.

And what does the euthanasia of Dolly the sheep have to do with anything at all? I never mentioned euthanasia in the post to which you are responding. I never suggested that I oppose or support euthanasia, or under what circumstances I might do one or the other. So don't put words in others' mouths. You linked to Peta but I don't know why, as their ideas of nature are suspect, and besides, I don't even think that the article linked to says what you think it says. It says that our primate ancestors evolved from carnivorous small animals into arboreal dwellers which forage for vegetation. That's at least more or less true, but what of it? It certainly does not say that carnivorous animals are unnatural, nor does it say (at least I hope it does not say) that those arboreal dwellers and their descendants are or were only vegetarian.

There's a good argument for making our diet more plant based, and for many other things, but it's a far far cry from that to the preposterous conclusion that moral personhood demands that we become raw vegans. Given the effect of human beings on the earth, if you wanted to make a truly global moral argument (mind you I don't and I know it's silly) one would do better to argue for people to keep their paws out of the natural world, eat nothing but cooked, fatty, hormone-drenched domesticated meat, and die young. Who is to say that the world would not be a happier place if human beings simply went extinct? Of course the news would not spread very well, but the idea that ideas are of any importance is a human one alone, and if one is going to be a simplistic fool, why not take it all the way?

 

[Kumar]

Do you know why she was euthanized?

Yes. Do you know it about PETA?