Why vegans are simply better people

[Skeptical Greg]

SG, this sounds counter intuitive. Let me ask a some questions. If someone did want to kill me and the police found about it, would they be obligated to try and stop it? If so, would that constitute something? What is the purpose of prosecuting people who are accused of murder or attempted murder? Is the codifying of laws to prohibit murder something to protect people from those who would murder? Or is the rate of murder the same in communities with a strong focus and tracking down and prosecuting murderers the same as those who don't have such a focus?

Please see following video. It doesn't prove anything but I think strong attention to law and order seems correlated with decreased violence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Of course the police are obligated to try to protect you, but in the real world, it doesn't really work that way most of the time.

They usually can't do anything until someone breaks the law, at which time it is too late; particularly if the law they break is murder.

The real protection for the most part, comes from precautionary measures taken by individuals; avoiding high crime areas & etc.

You have a right to life but you don't have the inherent right to a body guard..


( I'll have to watch the video later, and will comment if I feel it affects my observations. outlined here . )

 

[Belz...]

I think you're over-analysing it myself. The fact that you feel the need to make snarky observations like this probably go a long way to explaining why some people just give up and can't be bothered with the grief of arguing with you.

It's not snarky. It's something that I've seen done over and over again, usually by people on the "losing" side of a debate. "Well, I've wasted enough time arguing with you. I do have a life, you know ?" doesn't sound condescending, to you ?

Yeah, it's an attitude problem on your part. I can see why she isn't really interested in going through this kind of a dance with you.

Wait. It's an attitude problem on my part that YOU used an emotionally-charged word ? There was no attack. If you don't want people to disagree with you, don't pick the side of the issue most people will disagree with.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Exactly. The right is granted on me for merely being human.

No responsibility necessary.

Your responsibility would be taking the necessary steps to preserve that life when called upon to do so; and yes, most of the time it requires no conscious effort. ( for most people )

 

[bit_pattern]

It's not snarky. It's something that I've seen done over and over again, usually by people on the "losing" side of a debate. "Well, I've wasted enough time arguing with you. I do have a life, you know ?" doesn't sound condescending, to you

It does but that's not what she said. Anyway, I'm done here, I've really wasted enough of my time on this argument and wish to attend to my real life

 

[Paulhoff]

Nine standard amino acids are called "essential" for humans because they cannot be created from other compunds by the human body, and so must be taken in as food.

One reason for this......... WE EAT MEAT and over the 10's of thousand of years we lost that ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid


Paul

 

[The Big Dog]

A few points.

• There is zero question that we evolved to be omnivores.
• It is likely that nutrient and calorie dense meat made possible the very brains that make possible this debate.
• Animal food products can be and are a part of a healthy lifestyle for a large percentage of the population.
• Obesity is epidemic (likely due in part to cultural changes necessitating less calories).
• As a society we could due with less meat intake.
• There are environmental concerns associated with the production of animals for food.
• Factory farming results in much unnecessary suffering.

Pharoah said, So let it be written, so it shall be done.

Someone has got a hell of a future in the greeting card or bumper sticker markets.

 

[RandFan]

Of course the police are obligated to try to protect you, but in the real world, it doesn't really work that way most of the time.

They usually can't do anything until someone breaks the law, at which time it is too late; particularly if the law they break is murder.

The real protection for the most part, comes from precautionary measures taken by individuals; avoiding high crime areas & etc.

You have a right to life but you don't have the inherent right to a body guard..


( I'll have to watch the video later, and will comment if I feel it affects my observations. outlined here . )

Thanks, Well I certainly don't think I have a right to a body guard and I see your point. I'm just not sure that a right must be either absolute or not at all. But I agree that one might think it should be. In any event, it seems to me that I have a right to life sufficient to be able to demand and get protection if my life is in clear danger. The Declaration of Independence claims that I have that right. The UN Charter on human rights claims it. Now, perhaps I don't have such a right but I'm wondering, supposing those are just platitudes, if right to life isn't the basis for criminal and civil protection (you can sue another person or entity that deprives a loved one of life) what is? That's all.

 

[Belz...]

It does but that's not what she said. Anyway, I'm done here, I've really wasted enough of my time on this argument and wish to attend to my real life

 

[bit_pattern]

I lied. I don't actually have a real life.

 

[Belz...]

Me neither. It's entirely fictitious.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks, Well I certainly don't think I have a right to a body guard and I see your point. I'm just not sure that a right must be either absolute or not at all. But I agree that one might think it should be. In any event, it seems to me that I have a right to life sufficient to be able to demand and get protection if my life is in clear danger. The Declaration of Independence claims that I have that right. The UN Charter on human rights claims it. Now, perhaps I don't have such a right but I'm wondering, supposing those are just platitudes, if right to life isn't the basis for criminal and civil protection (you can sue another person or entity that deprives a loved one of life) what is? That's all.

As an aside, when the Declaration of Independence was penned, and thoughts such as " all men are created equal " were espoused, " all men ", didn't really mean " all men " ... It pretty much meant " all caucasian male property owners " ..

But thankfully, we enjoy the benefits of what " all men " means to most of us today , not what it meant 250 years ago..

 

[ConspiRaider]

As an aside, when the Declaration of Independence was penned, and thoughts such as " all men are created equal " were espoused, " all men ", didn't really mean " all men " ... It pretty much meant " all caucasian male property owners " ..

But thankfully, we enjoy the benefits of what " all men " means to most of us today , not what it meant 250 years ago..

But wait, I thought it guaranteed property ownership to all pale, crackery, caucasian males of whitely descent? No? I think yes! Somebody run out and get me a lawyer so I can sue Monticello!!11!!!

 

[RandFan]

As an aside, when the Declaration of Independence was penned, and thoughts such as " all men are created equal " were espoused, " all men ", didn't really mean " all men " ... It pretty much meant " all caucasian male property owners " ..

But thankfully, we enjoy the benefits of what " all men " means to most of us today , not what it meant 250 years ago..

Oh I agree. Slaves certainly didn't have the right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness and not much if any claim on life that is sure.

 

[dafydd]

Rights are irretrievably linked to responsibilities, so what responsibilities would animals take on along with the rights we would extend to them? And how are they agreeing to these rights and responsibilities?

I would extend rights to animals if next doors cat would stop crapping on my porch. Until then I hope he ends up on a plate in a Chinese restaurant.

 

[Thurkon]

Late to the discussion here. My problem with the vegan moral stance is that it seems based on a completely subjective and myopic perspective of what constitutes valuable life. Look, everything you eat that provides any kind of nutritional value lived at one time. Just because an organism lacks a central nervous system and the ability (as far as you know) to perceive the universe as you do, doesn’t mean the life form is therefore expendable.

I understand its human nature to empathize with organisms that more closely approximate ourselves, but that is quite an absurd way to construct some kind of diet based on principal. So you’re delineating which organisms are to be treasured and which have absolutely no value based on physical approximation to yourself? Where did you learn of this universal line of moral demarcation that renders all plant life worthless and all animal life inviolable?

 

[Loss Leader]

[*]Obesity is epidemic (likely due in part to cultural changes necessitating less calories).

I doubt people need many fewer calories than they did 20,000 years ago. The nomadic lifestyle was supposed to have had shorter workdays than today.

Instead, I'd suggest that the cost of producing a calorie of food has been plummeting for some time. At the same time, we're hard wired to eat as much food as we can get our hands on.

Also, corn.

 

[bit_pattern]

I doubt people need many fewer calories than they did 20,000 years ago. The nomadic lifestyle was supposed to have had shorter workdays than today.

Hunter gatherers also had to put a lot more calories into getting enough calories out of the environemtn to survive on. There is little doubt that we are currently more sedentary than at any point in history.

 

[Loss Leader]

Hunter gatherers also had to put a lot more calories into getting enough calories out of the environemtn to survive on.

Yes, this is what I mean by "cost." In many ways, a unit of currency and a calorie are very similar. They can both be used as ways of measuring labor.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Hunter gatherers also had to put a lot more calories into getting enough calories out of the environment to survive on. There is little doubt that we are currently more sedentary than at any point in history.

I was going to answer to this sooner but the mouse was behind the coffee mug. The mug handle was facing the wrong way, then I had to watch that I didn't dip my sleeve in the icing on the generous helping of kuchen, oh great the napkin was partially covering the mouse I hadda move that... Anyway, even though I am a meat partaker I will not eat my mouse, it's safe.

 

[RandFan]

I doubt people need many fewer calories than they did 20,000 years ago. The nomadic lifestyle was supposed to have had shorter workdays than today.

Oh boy, I fear a long debate. Let me head it off now. While I seriously disagree with you I'm not an expert and don't claim to be. I don't want that debate. Let's both state our cases and be prepared to move on, fair enough?

• The basal rate for a sedentary person is lower than one who is not sedentary.
• 20,000 years ago people didn't have modern conveniences and heat and shelter.
• Being forced every day to find food, seek shelter, avoid predators, prepare meals, gather wood, build fires, hunt, gather takes a lot of calories.
• I grew up on a small farm. I consumed a hell of a lot of calories and stayed quite thin. It was only when I became sedentary did the pounds start to pile up (people in the past didn't have the luxury of becoming sedentary).
• While going on an arctic exploration various duties would require between 3350 and 6500 calories a day.
• At his peak of training Michael Phelps consumed 12,000 calories a day.

There is more but that's my case and I'll stick to it.

ETA: I find the shorter work day less than compelling but hey, again I'm not an expert and concede I could be wrong.