Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

I wrote you a fairly lengthy essay on the subject this morning. It briefly surveyed the history of humankind's symbiosis with other species. You obviously didn't read it because you're still taking the one-sided approach that any relationship with animals in which the human is not entirely deferential to the animal is somehow exploitative. So much for your claim to want to understand both sides. As I said before, you're clearly here to moralistically evangelize, only you did no more homework that crib from PETA. You obviously have no idea the pariah that PETA is among actual animal lovers. What will it take for you to critically examine your belief?

When we discuss anything from natural POV, everything should relate to it, when we discuss from social POV, everything should relate to it. When we discuss with equanimity, every side should relate to it. When we discuss for rationality and selfish intrests, everything....,. So on.
..How will you take, all introductions, breeding, feeding, nursing, loving..killíng etc.? I

 

[Dave Rogers]

An altruistic monkey spanking?

I think he's saying that it's OK for a monkey to spank a monkey, or a dolphin to flog a dolphin, but not OK for a human to shake a snake.

Dave

 

[Kumar]

Jayutah,

I have done some homework by reading this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat

1. It suggest hunting and meat eating by human is long back history. I feel Peta has given some different picture. However, we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods. Whether it was just hunting and eating or also breeding, farming at mass scale?

2. "Slaughter[edit]
Animals are usually slaughtered by being first stunned and then exsanguinated (bled out). Death results from the one or the other procedure, depending on the methods employed. Stunning can be effected through asphyxiating the animals with carbon dioxide, shooting them with a gun or a captive bolt pistol, or shocking them with electric current.[1]:134ff In most forms of ritual slaughter, stunning is not allowed.
Draining as much blood as possible from the carcass is necessary because blood causes the meat to have an unappealing appearance and is a breeding ground for microorganisms.[1]:1340 The exsanguination is accomplished by severing the carotid artery and the jugular vein in cattle and sheep, and the anterior vena cava in pigs".

Apart from above many cruelity practices are also indicated.

3. Health[edit]
See also: Health concerns associated with red meat
A study of 400,000 subjects conducted by the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition and published in 2013 showed "a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer."

Apart from above, many other health, environment and other irregularities are indicated. However some advantages are also indicated.

 

[Dave Rogers]

However, we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods. Whether it was just hunting and eating or also breeding, farming at mass scale?

Why bother? It's easier just to make up the answers you want to see and then state publicly that you're going to ignore anything that disagrees with them, just like you do with homeopathy.

Dave

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I think he's saying that it's OK for a monkey to spank a monkey, or a dolphin to flog a dolphin, but not OK for a human to shake a snake.

Dave

What about 'lower' forms of life? Could a monkey milk its maggot alturisticly?

 

[MikeG]

........we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods. Whether it was just hunting and eating or also breeding, farming at mass scale?.........

You know we know the answer already, don't you? If you don't, then you need to do some more research.

 

[MikeG]

........ Health concerns associated with red meat.

A study...... showed "a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality......

There is the important word, highlighted for you. Cured meats. Preserved meats. Bacon. Sausage. Ham.

Can you explain what this has to do with the thread subject?

 

[sackett]

B-grade foodstuff, A-grade other

....Cured meats. Preserved meats. Bacon. Sausage. Ham....

And wieners! Sausages can be ALIVE!

 

[Kumar]

I wrote you a fairly lengthy essay on the subject this morning. It briefly surveyed the history of humankind's symbiosis with other species. You obviously didn't read it because you're still taking the one-sided approach that any relationship with animals in which the human is not entirely deferential to the animal is somehow exploitative. So much for your claim to want to understand both sides. As I said before, you're clearly here to moralistically evangelize, only you did no more homework that crib from PETA. You obviously have no idea the pariah that PETA is among actual animal lovers. What will it take for you to critically examine your belief?

There is the important word, highlighted for you. Cured meats. Preserved meats. Bacon. Sausage. Ham.

Can you explain what this has to do with the thread subject?

It is very múch relevent to thread subject. If there are no odds related to meat production and use, this topic will crash.

 

[bruto]

No you perceive or calculate wrong. To me, even regular vegetarian food can also be somehow food by violence--may even be more in some sense. True food with non violence & cruelty can just be what nature offer with a purpose. May it be fallen fruits, milk from happy cows/animals somewhat like mother milk, minerals, honey droplets, nector, dead beings(?) etc.

I just want to know, why nature has not evolved us with hunting & eating tools(like hunter animals lion etc.)? Why we need to cook meat?

I realize that actually finding things out is anathema to some people, but there have been many many things written about this.

Since you are so reluctant to accept anything anyone says here, why persist in asking questions here which would be better answered with even a cursory bit of research?

Asking questions knowing already that you will dismiss the answers is entertaining for those who like to gnaw on chew toys, but it's a very inefficient way to argue.

 

[JayUtah]

I have done some homework by reading this link:

No, you haven't done any homework. You've just scrounged around desperately to find something to help you continue to believe what you already believe.

I feel Peta has given some different picture.

You're still citing them as an authority despite all I've said. The homework I asked you to do was to research whether PETA could be considered a reliable source for the practice of keeping animals. Specifically you are basing your morality on what they tell you is moral. Are they really in a position to be considered good moral guides? Research that before you simply pontificate further in their style.

However, we need to check it, whether it was common practice and even without any scracity of Veg foods.

No, we don't. You are simply begging the question that vegetarianism is somehow morally superior and that meat was ever only eaten when there weren't enough vegetables. You're projecting a social agenda onto history.

See also: Health concerns associated with red meat.

No, that has nothing to do with whether animals are graciously offering themselves up as sacrifices to humans. The question was why animals do what they do, not whether the result of that is good for humans. You need to shed yourself of this stilted rhetoric before you can have a meaningful discussion about diet or food policy.

Once again, you've simply latched onto someone else's rhetoric and are refusing the look at it critically.

 

[fagin]

It is very múch relevent to thread subject. If there are no odds related to meat production and use, this topic will crash.

Gambling is bad, Kumar. Or did you mean something else?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And wieners! Sausages can be ALIVE!

So, morally, where are we on strangling a sausage?

Dave

 

[JayUtah]

It is very múch relevent to thread subject.

No, it isn't. The topic of the thread is what motivates animals to sacrifice themselves for food. Laying aside the many absurdities with that argument, which we've already discussed, the effects of diet preferences on the health of the eater has nothing to do with the alleged attitudes of the food animals. That you think they are related simply reveals that your true purpose here is to preach against eating meat.

If there are no odds related to meat production and use, this topic will crash.

The point you missed is that your off-topic conclusion doesn't follow from the facts. You're trying to say that meat makes people sick. The study you cited shows a correlation between processed meat and health. You want to attribute the effect to meat, but you don't consider the effect of the processing.

This is the sort of sloppy reasoning you get from people like PETA. Why haven't you taken a critical approach to their findings?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Even then, others are slaughtered in front of them, still their behavior seems not change.

They still do not realize they are going to be slaughtered.

In nature, animals gravitate to where the food is. Sometimes one is killed by a predator. Does that make the rest stay away? - of course not.

Hans

 

[bruto]

According to some sources, cooking food increases its caloric efficiency and keeps it edible for longer, and because we get more punch from cooked food and need to spend less time foraging and hunting we grow bigger brains. Those allow us to make tools instead of growing them on our bodies, to create art, and to amuse each other with zany ideas.

Or, to put it in snarky form, it is possible that if we did not cook we might be too stupid to look stuff up on Google.

Take a walk on the wild side, and massacre a couple of coffee beans.

 

[JayUtah]

2. Slaughter
Animals are usually slaughtered by being first stunned...

And what methods does PETA use when they kill animals? Are PETA's reasons for systematically euthanizing animals (including, in a few extreme cases, kidnapped family pets) in their care congruent with your ideals?

When beef cattle are slaughtered, there is a purpose. The meat goes to feed people. The skin goes to form durable coverings and protections, and so forth. All these are morally tolerable purposes because another organism benefits directly from it. This is the food chain. This is the basis of all life on Earth. When PETA kills otherwise adoptable rescue animals simply because they are morally opposed to adoption and pet-keeping, is that an equally noble purpose? Are the little puppies and kittens expressing gratitude, compulsion, idiocy, or nobility for staying with their PETA "rescuers" until they're led en masse to the execution chamber? Are they happy to sacrifice their lives so that PETA can continue to solicit donations and make their founders feel important?

This is the group you are relying upon to teach you morals and to place human behavior and history in a moral context. You are using that moral viewpoint as the basis for your questions, discussion, and debate. I've tried several times to get you to address the hypocrisy of your source, but you simply refuse. I suppose it's because you also embrace the hypocrisy, after which it becomes supremely arrogant of you to argue a supposedly superior moral attitude from that position.

Apart from above many cruelity practices are also indicated.

And the rest of us here are quite able to see the difference between actual cruelty and the abstraction of raising and keeping animals. You are not. You see only a false dichotomy between PETA's extreme notion of total deference to animals, and everything else, which you characterize as savagery and barbarism.

Again, why is your thinking so limited?

 

[bruto]

....<snip>....

Again, why is your thinking so limited?

Oh Jay, are you sure you really want the answer to that?

Wislawa Szymborska once knocked on a stone's front door. The stone, though it could not answer, was a poet by comparison with some.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

No, they are not idiots. They simply do not have the sufficient intelligence to see through things. .... Which reminds me of certain present company ...

Hans

 

[bruto]

Sorry. Simply, Are those animals not Idiots ....<snip>

Long answer erased, because what is the point? So....

No they're not idiots. They're animals. They do not understand in the way we do, and such terms as arrogance, idiocy, ignorance and obstinacy, so applicable to humans, do not apply.

When a bee stings an enemy it disembowels itself and dies. Try to parse the idea of idiocy here before going too much further down the bottomless rabbit hole.