Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

You are proposing to slaughter the vegetables? How will you be doing so humanely?

Fruits.

 

[bruto]

Fruits.

What about fruits that continue to live after picking? And what about the seeds within them? I mean, if you're going be a ridiculous purist about this sort of stuff, you can't eat an apple until it's started to rot, and only if you promise to plant the core. I am assuming here, probably wrongly, that you are aware that many fruits continue to be living beings after they're fallen or picked. An apple continues with respiration for quite some time.

What makes eating a fruit less murderous than eating a vegetable? If you eat a carrot, you're eating the living being, of course, but if you let it go to seed first, you're not impeding its evolution. If you eat an apple, it's true that the tree lives on, but you're eating its babies and impeding its evolution. It's a no win situation. If you take your silliness to its conclusion you're going to be eating gravel.

And why, if nature has been so free as to create large numbers of carnivores, including our simian ancestors, should it ever be considered more natural for us to become vegans?

 

[Kumar]

What about fruits that continue to live after picking? And what about the seeds within them? I mean, if you're going be a ridiculous purist about this sort of stuff, you can't eat an apple until it's started to rot, and only if you promise to plant the core. I am assuming here, probably wrongly, that you are aware that many fruits continue to be living beings after they're fallen or picked. An apple continues with respiration for quite some time.

What makes eating a fruit less murderous than eating a vegetable? If you eat a carrot, you're eating the living being, of course, but if you let it go to seed first, you're not impeding its evolution. If you eat an apple, it's true that the tree lives on, but you're eating its babies and impeding its evolution. It's a no win situation. If you take your silliness to its conclusion you're going to be eating gravel.

And why, if nature has been so free as to create large numbers of carnivores, including our simian ancestors, should it ever be considered more natural for us to become vegans?

Fruits are naturally offered for dispersal, so attract on fully ripe. Our natural duty is to enable seed dispersal in return of pulp gift. Moreover generation violence do not happen in case of fruits, whereas possible in case of vegetables & flowers, even leaves, stems, branches & roots(veg propagation & Tissue culture). Just calculate killing by generation killing and few killing. I think, you can not propagate plants even by tissue culture by fruit pulp. Some voilance can't not be avoided for live & let live but Intelligent violence leading to minimum violence can be opted.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

to sum up

 

[bruto]

Fruits are naturally offered for dispersal, so attract on fully ripe. Our natural duty is to enable seed dispersal in return of pulp gift. Moreover generation violence do not happen in case of fruits, whereas possible in case of vegetables & flowers, even leaves, stems, branches & roots(veg propagation & Tissue culture). Just calculate killing by generation killing and few killing. I think, you can not propagate plants even by tissue culture by fruit pulp. Some voilance can't not be avoided for live & let live but Intelligent violence leading to minimum violence can be opted.

You can propagate plants in various ways, but I was very careful to choose for my silly simile a carrot, an annual plant that propagates by seed. Obviously a plant that propagates by seed and dies thereafter has done its thing from the evolutionary and generational standpoint. To suggest that eating it is somehow more savage than eating, say, a walnut or a tomato, is preposterously foolish. If, as the saying goes, mighty oaks from acorns grow, then a squirrel munching an acorn is a far more murderous fiend than a man eating a parsnip.

Some fruits can of course be eaten and the seeds dispersed, but it is illegitimately teleological to suggest that it offers itself to be eaten, rather than simply being taken advantage of by herbivores. There is in nature a nice symbiotic relationship between some fruits and animals, in which the animal disperses the indigestible seeds after eating the fruit. But there's nothing moral about it, nor does one thing happen because of another. It's just successful. It works. Some fruits work well by being partially digested by herbivores. Some others work well by making enough that they can survive the depredation of seed-eating herbivores. Just as some animals keep from extinction with claws and shells, and some by making so many eggs that a few progeny will survive the carnivorous feast. If you make the sad evolutionary mistake of presuming that fruits are made to be eaten simply because they are, you cannot then deny that animals such as krill are made to be eaten by penguins and whales, or, of course, that the domestic animals we raise for meat were not "made" to be eaten as well, since without the demand for their meat they would not exist.

Or, as Wallace Stevens famously put it in the title of a poem, "
Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs

 

[Kumar]

You can propagate plants in various ways, but I was very careful to choose for my silly simile a carrot, an annual plant that propagates by seed. Obviously a plant that propagates by seed and dies thereafter has done its thing from the evolutionary and generational standpoint. To suggest that eating it is somehow more savage than eating, say, a walnut or a tomato, is preposterously foolish. If, as the saying goes, mighty oaks from acorns grow, then a squirrel munching an acorn is a far more murderous fiend than a man eating a parsnip.

Some fruits can of course be eaten and the seeds dispersed, but it is illegitimately teleological to suggest that it offers itself to be eaten, rather than simply being taken advantage of by herbivores. There is in nature a nice symbiotic relationship between some fruits and animals, in which the animal disperses the indigestible seeds after eating the fruit. But there's nothing moral about it, nor does one thing happen because of another. It's just successful. It works. Some fruits work well by being partially digested by herbivores. Some others work well by making enough that they can survive the depredation of seed-eating herbivores. Just as some animals keep from extinction with claws and shells, and some by making so many eggs that a few progeny will survive the carnivorous feast. If you make the sad evolutionary mistake of presuming that fruits are made to be eaten simply because they are, you cannot then deny that animals such as krill are made to be eaten by penguins and whales, or, of course, that the domestic animals we raise for meat were not "made" to be eaten as well, since without the demand for their meat they would not exist.

Or, as Wallace Stevens famously put it in the title of a poem, "
Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs

As I mentioned fruits are purposeful to fullfil nature goal. Moreover who is eating what also depend on their nature. It is for the purpose to keep nature in harmony and balance. Since we need to cook, it can not be taken as primarily natural. Spending lesser energy on physical natural works, can make you physically wéaker but mentally strong. Probably, increasing consicióusness or mental power or brain size may be due to this reason not a primarily nature aspect or simply an adaptation.

 

[Kumar]

Since long back, I was bit confused that, leaving true homeostatic level, whether a physically strong/active person is somewhat inferior to a mentally strong/active person and vice versa. I feel, I got some logic to it, as mentioned by me in "Consciousness/Awareness topic. I am happy.

 

[Kumar]

to sum up

One may need to be so dynamic that he can understand truth..true sense, true religion, true nature, true humanity, true morality, true diet...so many true. When you are able to understand it, you shall need not to base morality or humanity for basic nature,sense and truth. Try.

 

[Peregrinus]

One may need to be so dynamic that he can understand truth..true sense, true religion, true nature, true humanity, true morality, true diet...so many true. When you are able to understand it, you shall need not to base morality or humanity for basic nature,sense and truth. Try.

We've been trying, many of us for many pages in many threads. And getting nowhere with it. I'm reminded of the poem which states "The boy stood on the burning deck / Whence all but he had fled . . . ."

 

[bruto]

We've been trying, many of us for many pages in many threads. And getting nowhere with it. I'm reminded of the poem which states "The boy stood on the burning deck / Whence all but he had fled . . . ."

Indeed, a surprisingly good example, combining in this case a famously futile gesture with a famously clumsy bit of grammar.

 

[fagin]

I'm sure I remember that as a kid..

The boy stood on the burning deck
The captain blew his hooter.
And who do you think came trundling by?
Why Kumar on his scooter.

 

[JayUtah]

One may need to be so dynamic that he can understand truth..true sense, true religion, true nature, true humanity, true morality, true diet...so many true.

But you can't prove any of those are true. You're just wantonly abusing the word "true" to make it seem like your personal morals are self-evidently correct.

When you are able to understand it...

It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of having no rational basis for accepting it. You're talking to skeptics. They aren't going to be convinced by a lot of sanctimonious handwaving, which apparently is the only horse in your stable. At every turn we find that it's you who doesn't understand anything about the world outside your little bubble. You're not the enlightened one here, and frankly the arrogance you display is getting quite tedious, insulting, and annoying.

Try.

Thinking for yourself. Try it.

We get it: you have strongly held religious beliefs. But this is not the place to proselyte or to convince yourself that they are objectively correct.

 

[Mojo]

One may need to be so dynamic that he can understand truth..true sense, true religion, true nature, true humanity, true morality, true diet...

Worms?

 

[bruto]

The boy stood on the burning deck,
but badly schooled was him.
His garbled prayer received no heed;
The price paid for error grim.

 

[bruto]

Worms?

I think a diet of worms is an acquired taste. Luther found it quite indigestible.

 

[Peregrinus]

Worms?

That's for Kumar's benefit. Historical references, most factual statements, and humorous turns of phrase all fly right over his head. (Dang! That's figurative language too!)

 

[bruto]

The boy stood on the burning deck,
Consumed by rising heat.
"Immoral flames, go straight to heck,
For cooking all my meat."

 

[Kumar]

But you can't prove any of those are true. You're just wantonly abusing the word "true" to make it seem like your personal morals are self-evidently correct.



It's not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of having no rational basis for accepting it. You're talking to skeptics. They aren't going to be convinced by a lot of sanctimonious handwaving, which apparently is the only horse in your stable. At every turn we find that it's you who doesn't understand anything about the world outside your little bubble. You're not the enlightened one here, and frankly the arrogance you display is getting quite tedious, insulting, and annoying.



Thinking for yourself. Try it.

We get it: you have strongly held religious beliefs. But this is not the place to proselyte or to convince yourself that they are objectively correct.

When one want to do unbiased or truthful discussions, he has to forget self and look the things with equanimity and face the facts. Otherwise, to adjust, need of time/environment/evolution, he can discuss rationally. Discussing with selfish vested interests.ego and perceptions he can also support one sidedness & lie. My Mango tree example.

 

[Kumar]

Worms?

Althought it can be irrational to discuss but most natural diet of anyone should be diet of its constituents.

 

[JayUtah]

When one want to do unbiased or truthful discussions, he has to forget self and look the things with equanimity and face the facts.

Yes, you should do that.