Will I be Ok if I eat red meat today?

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by speedy4500

Your argument against killing animals fails on its own grounds. Animals kill other animals all the time, without regard to some "cognitive" scale. Is it immoral for a lion to kill a gazelle? Or a honey badger to kill a cobra? No, because honey badger don't give a ****. Animals have no concept of morality or self-awareness nor any concept of what "intelligence" is, so therefor they do not possess even close to the same magnitude of intelligence as humans do. If there is some scale of significant intelligence that should dictate what is acceptable to kill, animals violate it all the time, and so your entire argument falls apart. If anything, a cognitive function scale would be an argument FOR humans to kill ANY other animal, because clearly any other animal is not even in the same league as humans are with regard to intelligence. In fact, I'm not so sure you can even say that animals have ANY intelligence in the same manner that humans do: I've killed a pig and had other pigs come in and happily lap up the warm blood pulsing out of the dead pig's neck, without any clue that I was going to kill him next.... that is to say, pigs are ******* stupid. When any other animal besides a human invents a cell phone or a space ship, then I might consider them to have similar cognitive abilities. Until then, I want to eat dolphin bacon at some point in my life.
Lots of misinformation in the above. Some animals kill other animals for food, but for survival. They normally have no option. Those animals do not have the ability of being moral agents. Other animals do possess self-awareness and can be considered in the same "league" as humans. Lack of inventions doesn't mean the species is of significantly lower intelligence. Nearly every human creation can be attributed to one anatomical function: the hands. It's not fair to judge other animals for their lack of creations when they don't possess hands. The hands are also the reason for our superior intelligence, otherwise we wouldn't be much different from other animals. You are very wrong, pigs are not stupid. They are highly intelligent land animals. Using the dead pig's blood for food sounds more like they've been starved and provides no clue of their level of intelligence. Also note that the Hierarchy of Animal Value Scale does not argue that humans shouldn't eat any animals. It's more of a guide in determining which animals have different rights and to provide a moral compass for the level of treatment for various species.

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Killing humans for food is only wrong because we are ourselves humans. If there were some stronger, smarter species that ate humans, could we say that were wrong?
Cannibalism is wrong because it's cannibalism. That's how your first statement reads. Yes a species superior to us that kills humans would be acting immorally.

 

[MrG]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

bacon is not worth it. salty lard with greese. isnt turkey bacon just the same anyway?

This may be the least-true statement in the history of SF.

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Lots of misinformation in the above. Some animals kill other animals for food, but for survival. They normally have no option. Those animals do not have the ability of being moral agents. Other animals do possess self-awareness and can be considered in the same "league" as humans.

Lack of inventions doesn't mean the species is of significantly lower intelligence. Nearly every human creation can be attributed to one anatomical function: the hands. It's not fair to judge other animals for their lack of creations when they don't possess hands. The hands are also the reason for our superior intelligence, otherwise we wouldn't be much different from other animals.

You are very wrong, pigs are not stupid. They are highly intelligent land animals. Using the dead pig's blood for food sounds more like they've been starved and provides no clue of their level of intelligence.

Also note that the Hierarchy of Animal Value Scale does not argue that humans shouldn't eat any animals. It's more of a guide in determining which animals have different rights and to provide a moral compass for the level of treatment for various species.



Cannibalism is wrong because it's cannibalism. That's how your first statement reads. Yes a species superior to us that kills humans would be acting immorally.

Unlike you. Why should we base what we should eat on intelligence rather than its nutritional value and ease of access?

Cannibalism is wrong because its cannibalism. We don't eat humans because they are the same as us, not because they are maybe nearly as intelligent as us. Would you be OK with eating a newborn baby that has no self awareness?

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by Sir Humphrey Appleby

Unlike you. Why should we base what we should eat on intelligence rather than its nutritional value and ease of access?

Cannibalism is wrong because its cannibalism. We don't eat humans because they are the same as us, not because they are maybe nearly as intelligent as us. Would you be OK with eating a newborn baby that has no self awareness?

The HAV Scale is considerate of the species as a whole, not the individual animals involved for the reason being there are variants like stages of development or damage. The newborn baby would not apply. Meat consumption isn't based on nutritional value or ease of access.

Cannibalism is wrong because its cannibalism holds no logic or basis. What does that even mean? You are just making a statement without any reasoning.

Here is a similar theory of Tom Regan, a writer:

non-human animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life," and as such are bearers of rights. He argues that, because the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans. Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal-case humans, such as infants, and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients." Moral patients are unable to formulate moral principles, and as such are unable to do right or wrong, even though what they do may be beneficial or harmful. Only moral agents are able to engage in moral action.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by MrG

This may be the least-true statement in the history of SF.

come on, of all pig products you'd pick bacon? no ribs?

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

The HAV Scale is considerate of the species as a whole, not the individual animals involved for the reason being there are variants like stages of development or damage. The newborn baby would not apply. Meat consumption isn't based on nutritional value or ease of access.

Cannibalism is wrong because its cannibalism holds no logic or basis. What does that even mean? You are just making a statement without any reasoning.

Here is a similar theory of Tom Regan, a writer:

In that case it isn't logical, but its true. I suppose we evolved to not be cannibals to further the chances of the race becoming more widespread.

I wonder why, since pigs are so clever and sheep are so stupid, yet we eat pork much more than venison if meat consumption is about intelligence?

Have you ever seen a vegetarian? Tiny straggly things that couldn't lift a feather, there's a reason why we evolved to eat meat.

Are you one of these people who says we shouldn't kill animals ourselves if we can buy it in a packet in a shop to pass on the guilt of the animal's death to the abbatoir?

 

[MrG]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

come on, of all pig products you'd pick bacon? no ribs?

This is an excellent point. I have to admit, if someone told me I could only have one pork item for the rest of my life, I'd probably have to go with ribs.

Even so, bacon is definitely "worth it," it's definitely not "salty lard with greese [sic]," and even implying that turkey bacon is "the same" as real bacon should be a felony.

 

[speedy4500]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Lack of inventions doesn't mean the species is of significantly lower intelligence. Nearly every human creation can be attributed to one anatomical function: the hands. It's not fair to judge other animals for their lack of creations when they don't possess hands. The hands are also the reason for our superior intelligence, otherwise we wouldn't be much different from other animals.
So you're telling me if a chicken had hands, they'd be traveling to the Moon?

Humans have special capacity in our brains to process abstract notions, outside of physical reality. Are there any other animals in existence that have shown any ability to "get" such abstract concepts as God/religion or The Universe or even basic mathematics? Oh, but I guess if they had hands they could.... someone should tell Stephen Hawking that since his hands don't work, he's an idiot. Any example of "animal intelligence" is usually a result of humans training animals to do something--and really no different than humans programming a computer--instead of organic intelligence that humans, and only humans, possess. No one knows how or why we have this extraordinary mental capability and imagination... it's the greatest mystery known to man.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

You are very wrong, pigs are not stupid. They are highly intelligent land animals. Using the dead pig's blood for food sounds more like they've been starved and provides no clue of their level of intelligence.
Trust me, these pigs are bred and raised to be fat F***ers. They eat very well. Consuming another pig's blood is simply a natural impulse for all non-human animals that can't comprehend the actions and consequences of their immediate surrounding. They might be "intelligent" compared to a worm, but compared to humans, a pig's brain is worthless. Unless pan-roasted in a nice brown butter sauce with capers, in which case a pig's brain is delicious.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

The HAV Scale is considerate of the species as a whole, not the individual animals involved for the reason being there are variants like stages of development or damage. The newborn baby would not apply. Meat consumption isn't based on nutritional value or ease of access. Cannibalism is wrong because its cannibalism holds no logic or basis. What does that even mean? You are just making a statement without any reasoning.
The difference is that as human beings, we understand that an infant or ill person may not have, at that moment, the ability to comprehend morality or contribute to the survival of our species, but we DO presume that such a person has the CAPACITY to do so in the future. Animals can't understand that. They have no concept of the future beyond their next meal, or of further generations of their species. When an animal kills their own young, they don't think about how that baby might be able to contribute to their species in the future... they just know that at that moment, their offspring is becoming a hindrance to the immediate task at hand. The ability for animals to weight future benefits versus current costs is trivial at best. I get that you want to rank animals on some intelligence scale. That's what humans do--we like to rank and organize and develop ideas, matters of which all other animals wouldn't understand. The first division in that scale is simple: humans and non-humans. And it shouldn't be a vertical ranking so much as an entirely different branch altogether. The difference is as vast as eukaryotes and prokaryotes. That's all I need to know.... you can waste your time ranking the intelligence of all my food in the non-human category.

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Also notice how this order is in order of intelligence, the only thing we come remotely close to virtually every other animal on. Artificially putting us on top, you might as well list it in order of closeness to the word "human" by scrabble score.

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by Sir Humphrey Appleby

In that case it isn't logical, but its true. I suppose we evolved to not be cannibals to further the chances of the race becoming more widespread.

I wonder why, since pigs are so clever and sheep are so stupid, yet we eat pork much more than venison if meat consumption is about intelligence?

Have you ever seen a vegetarian? Tiny straggly things that couldn't lift a feather, there's a reason why we evolved to eat meat.

Are you one of these people who says we shouldn't kill animals ourselves if we can buy it in a packet in a shop to pass on the guilt of the animal's death to the abbatoir?

It's not true that "cannibalism is bad because its cannibalism". it doesn't make sense and that's why you are unable to explain it. Other species are inclined to further their race and can still sometimes be cannibalistic.

Many people have a false belief that humans and other animals are entirely different. That explains why they don't consider an animals cognitive abilities.

You are stereotyping vegetarians. A vegetarian doesn't have to be weak and lacking muscle mass. see here: http://vegetarianmeals.org/how-the-v...scle-building/

No, I'm not one of those people at all.

Originally Posted by speedy4500

So you're telling me if a chicken had hands, they'd be traveling to the Moon?

Humans have special capacity in our brains to process abstract notions, outside of physical reality. Are there any other animals in existence that have shown any ability to "get" such abstract concepts as God/religion or The Universe or even basic mathematics? Oh, but I guess if they had hands they could.... someone should tell Stephen Hawking that since his hands don't work, he's an idiot.

Any example of "animal intelligence" is usually a result of humans training animals to do something--and really no different than humans programming a computer--instead of organic intelligence that humans, and only humans, possess. No one knows how or why we have this extraordinary mental capability and imagination... it's the greatest mystery known to man.

Chickens are an extreme example considering they aren't mammals and their brains aren't very similar to ours. It's no coincidence that the most superior animal species is the only one with hands, other than ancestral primates.

Dolphins are very much capable of a similar thinking process to ours as well as any other species that uses complex language (just dolphins and elephants as far as I know). They of course do not have a concept of god because that's a cultural mythology created by humans. The universe is irrelevant to them because they do not have a means to know about it. They know basic principles of numbers.

Animal intelligence is not dependent on human training and a human not having hands would not decrease their intelligence. It's no mystery why we have the mental capacity we do, it's mostly due to our hands which give us an ability to manipulate our environment. Without them, there isn't much reason to develop the intelligence level we have. Every unnatural object can be attributed to hands.

Originally Posted by speedy4500

The difference is that as human beings, we understand that an infant or ill person may not have, at that moment, the ability to comprehend morality or contribute to the survival of our species, but we DO presume that such a person has the CAPACITY to do so in the future. Animals can't understand that. They have no concept of the future beyond their next meal, or of further generations of their species. When an animal kills their own young, they don't think about how that baby might be able to contribute to their species in the future... they just know that at that moment, their offspring is becoming a hindrance to the immediate task at hand. The ability for animals to weight future benefits versus current costs is trivial at best.

I get that you want to rank animals on some intelligence scale. That's what humans do--we like to rank and organize and develop ideas, matters of which all other animals wouldn't understand. The first division in that scale is simple: humans and non-humans. And it shouldn't be a vertical ranking so much as an entirely different branch altogether. The difference is as vast as eukaryotes and prokaryotes. That's all I need to know.... you can waste your time ranking the intelligence of all my food in the non-human category.

More stereotyping and demeaning of other species with no basis in fact. The problem is breaking it into two categories of humans and non-humans because there is no reasoning behind it. The explanations are again dependent on an anatomical part that other animals other than primates do not have.

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Many people have a false belief that humans and other animals are entirely different. That explains why they don't consider an animals cognitive abilities.

You are stereotyping vegetarians. A vegetarian doesn't have to be weak and lacking muscle mass. see here: http://vegetarianmeals.org/how-the-v...scle-building/

No, I'm not one of those people at all.



Chickens are an extreme example considering they aren't mammals and their brains aren't very similar to ours. It's no coincidence that the most superior animal species is the only one with hands, other than ancestral primates.

Dolphins are very much capable of a similar thinking process to ours as well as any other species that uses complex language (just dolphins and elephants as far as I know). They of course do not have a concept of god because that's a cultural mythology created by humans. The universe is irrelevant to them because they do not have a means to know about it. They know basic principles of numbers.

Animal intelligence is not dependent on human training and a human not having hands would not decrease their intelligence. It's no mystery why we have the mental capacity we do, it's mostly due to our hands which give us an ability to manipulate our environment. Without them, there isn't much reason to develop the intelligence level we have. Every unnatural object can be attributed to hands.


More stereotyping and demeaning of other species with no basis in fact. The problem is breaking it into two categories of humans and non-humans because there is no reasoning behind it. The explanations are again dependent on an anatomical part that other animals other than primates do not have.

If you have hands and walk upright, you have to be clever to not get eaten because it means you cannot run. If humans are the same as animals surely that means it is OK to eat other animals like they do?

Are you saying its OK to eat animals that can't count, and how many animals in that species have to be able to count for it to be not OK to eat them?

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by Sir Humphrey Appleby

If you have hands and walk upright, you have to be clever to not get eaten because it means you cannot run. If humans are the same as animals surely that means it is OK to eat other animals like they do?

Pretty sure humans can run, not sure of your point.
Humans are different but only in levels of intelligence and anatomically. There's no reason to replicate the behavior of animals just because we are animals too. The point is, some other animals have the same valued qualities as humans and therefore if someone has regard for human life, then those rights should extend to some other animals. There should not be a species bias.

I should point out, intelligence is just part of the reason. It's the relation of intelligence to the emotional and pain parts of the brain. A more intelligent animal will experience pain and suffering to a higher degree.

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Pretty sure humans can run, not sure of your point.
Humans are different but only in levels of intelligence and anatomically. There's no reason to replicate the behavior of animals just because we are animals too. The point is, some other animals have the same valued qualities as humans and therefore if someone has regard for human life, then those rights should extend to some other animals. There should not be a species bias.

I should point out, intelligence is just part of the reason. It's the relation of intelligence to the emotional and pain parts of the brain. A more intelligent animal will experience pain and suffering to a higher degree.

Go veggie then. Are you saying if I punch my dog she won't feel as much pain as if someone punched me?

If we are different, we aren't the same (aren't opposites cool?) and therefore its OK to eat them. We are different by intelligence and anatomically, how are we the same?

 

[Nosu3]

Originally Posted by Sir Humphrey Appleby

Go veggie then. Are you saying if I punch my dog she won't feel as much pain as if someone punched me?

If we are different, we aren't the same (aren't opposites cool?) and therefore its OK to eat them. We are different by intelligence and anatomically, how are we the same?

Pain will probably be felt differently but that's not measurable. It's the experience of pain that makes the difference. Some plants respond to pain too but clearly don't experience it the way we do because of our developed cognition. Intelligence and cognition go hand in hand.

No one said humans are the same... no species are the same. What is the difference between an insect and a human? Both are animals. You are generalizing the entire animal kingdom. It comes down to cognitive abilities. If you value human life, then don't look at all other animals as the same, instead place more value on animals with cognitive abilities nearest to ours. It's a very simple concept.

Recently scientists have been investigating PTSD occurring in elephants.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

 

[Sir Humphrey Appleby]

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Pain will probably be felt differently but that's not measurable. It's the experience of pain that makes the difference. Some plants respond to pain too but clearly don't experience it the way we do because of our developed cognition. Intelligence and cognition go hand in hand.

No one said humans are the same... no species are the same. What is the difference between an insect and a human? Both are animals. You are generalizing the entire animal kingdom. It comes down to cognitive abilities. If you value human life, then don't look at all other animals as the same, instead place more value on animals with cognitive abilities nearest to ours. It's a very simple concept.

Recently scientists have been investigating PTSD occurring in elephants.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

Look tasty.

Anyway, enjoy eating stupid animals, I'll go and enjoy my pork chops.