Unutterably Silly THE AMITYVILLE VEGETARIAN HORROR!

[recluse]

That is usually the bottom line: everybody else has to live up to a standard set by a group who doesn't.

[happy_terd]

Penn and Teller bullshit Peta episode on youtube is a must watch.

It is not suitable for young children or small fluffy things so I will not link it, but it is easy to find and worth a watch.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by nomesque

I cope with the PETA types better than with the 'I eat meat but I can't stand the idea of an animal dying for it' types. GAH! I'm a country kid, I grew up around farms and killing-for-food. After I turned vegetarian, I started breeding mice for my cats (because I didn't think depriving THEM of meat was fair, and at least this way I knew how the animals going into the cat food had been treated). The number of people who thought I was a monster for doing that, and swooned at the idea that their meat was being raised and killed less humanely... but wouldn't dream of not eating meat...

I guess when you get right down to it, I'm a big fan of logical consistency. Believe what you want, only PLEASE MAKE SENSE!

Yes, but (ignoring the 'Silliness' prefix for a sec) - we live in a post-Darwinian world, where science is discovering that humans don't occupy the special place in the Universe that Christanity has espoused for millenia - how do we continue to convince ourselves that we are a special species, worthy of a higher level of ethical consideration than any other?
Isn't logical consistency pointing out that, actually, we're not?

Our 'ethics' seem to be rather subjective, and logic doesn't figure much in the equation.

[nomesque]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes, but (ignoring the 'Silliness' prefix for a sec) - we live in a post-Darwinian world, where science is discovering that humans don't occupy the special place in the Universe that Christanity has espoused for millenia - how do we continue to convince ourselves that we are a special species, worthy of a higher level of ethical consideration than any other?
Isn't logical consistency pointing out that, actually, we're not?

Our 'ethics' seem to be rather subjective, and logic doesn't figure much in the equation.

Wait - are you arguing that:

- eating animals and eating humans are analogous
or
- considering ourselves to have a 'right' to 'rule' over nature is dumb
or
- considering ourselves to be above participating fully in the food chain is dumb

?

(it might sound like I'm having a go - I'm not, I just saw multiple possible arguments in what you said)

[Sparrow]

Well what I'm struggling with is that the old distinction between 'animal' and 'human' no longer applies - humans are animals.
So:

Originally Posted by nomesque

- eating animals and eating humans are analogous
or
- considering ourselves to have a 'right' to 'rule' over nature is dumb

Objectively - the answer seems to be Yes to both (I'd be intrigued to see the argument for No.).

Originally Posted by nomesque

- considering ourselves to be above participating fully in the food chain is dumb

No, because we're just animals too at the end of the day.
Edit: Ooops, I may have misunderstood what was meant by 'participating fully' - in which case my answer may be Yes (basically we're just critters and behave as such).

[recluse]

If I'm understanding this "humans are animals" theory correctly, that puts serial killers at the top of the food chain. While I agree that 98% of the human population is little more than ambulatory bologna, that's still ridiculous. No matter how you look at it, humans are the apex predators, nature is an endless bloodbath and the animals with 4 legs, or more, lost. Want a hanky?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by recluse

Want a hanky?

No thanks, your post wasn't that exciting.

[Delta Tango]

- eating animals and eating humans are analogous

Our society has decided that humans are not on our menu. Why? Probably because there are other sources of food that are easier to hunt for, and I guess we don't taste as good (I'm actually serious about this last part).

However, believe it or not, there is still a significant percentage of human population that does practice cannibalism (although not for nourishment, but for spiritual or other reasons) and for them it is not only normal to eat their fellow brother in arm after he falls in a battle or an enemy whose skull they've just bashed in, but it is a social norm.

- considering ourselves to have a 'right' to 'rule' over nature is dumb

What is ruling over the nature? Building a shelter, not burrowing it?

- considering ourselves to be above participating fully in the food chain is dumb

Today I eat beef, tomorrow worms will eat me. I accept that and nothing I eat now will change the fact that eventually the worms shall have my corpse in their bellies.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Delta Tango

Our society has decided that humans are not on our menu. Why? Probably because there are other sources of food that are easier to hunt for, and I guess we don't taste as good (I'm actually serious about this last part).

I heard once that human flesh is the best sort of meat, because it is more nutritionally balanced for us than than the flesh of other species - dunno if that's really true, but it makes some sort of sense on the face of it.

[Delta Tango]

Have you ever eaten a carnivore?
If you have you'll remember that it probably didn't taste as good as a herbivore.
If you haven't, that's the reason why you haven't.

Since for humans meat represents a significant part of diet, I guess that would apply.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Delta Tango

Have you ever eaten a carnivore?
If you have you'll remember that it probably didn't taste as good as a herbivore.
If you haven't, that's the reason why you haven't.

Since for humans meat represents a significant part of diet, I guess that would apply.

Interesting comment, fowl eat things like slugs and worms (and fed fish meal) so that would make them ominverous; 'meat' as part of their diet.

Last I tried chicken / turkey was tasty ....

[Sparrow]

In the UK cows have been fed on sheep for decades.

Doesn't human taste like pork (hence calling it longpig)?

[Delta Tango]

Unless you grow your own chickens, let them freely run in your backyard, and give them nothing at all to eat so they have to hunt the worms on their own, the chickens you eat are fed with something that has less than 2,5% animal stuff.

[Delta Tango]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

In the UK cows have been fed on sheep for decades.

Yeah, and we all know how that turned out.
http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/bse/madcow.html

[Cyberman tM]

Originally Posted by Delta Tango

Our society has decided that humans are not on our menu. Why? Probably because there are other sources of food that are easier to hunt for, and I guess we don't taste as good (I'm actually serious about this last part).

I think it's more of a disease problem. The more closely related your food is, the more likely it is to have the same sort of bacteria and virus you have. So they can more easily travel from one to another.

BSE has been mentioned - it likely wouldn't have happened if those poor animals hadn't been forced to be cannibals.
Also, the sheer genius of feeding meat-based products to a herbivore is to blame as well. Whoever had that idea should be flogged.