Music Banter - A question to vegetarians

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)

- - A question to vegetarians (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/34930-question-vegetarians.html)

You only need to stand by a fence for them all to wander over in curiosity. Rolling on the floor is like curiosity if it had downed a gallon of Budweiser and decided to brutally assault the first person it saw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mykonos (Post 1079922)

What?

The cows in my area, never do that. They will just stay in their spot doing jackshit all like the stupid creatures they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1079884)

What value does something being on a "lower" or "higher" level of evolutionary development have? A cockroach or a bacteria is relatively low on the evolutionary scale, and yet they will likely outlive us since they are much more resilient than us. And isn't that the whole point of evolution? To make organisms more capable of surviving. So aren't they more "highly" evolved than us?

Are you even a highly evolved organism at all? You percieve yourself as being just one being. But in reality you are just your consciousness, which is just one part of a collective of organisms (skin cells, muscle cells, brain cells, and even bacteria) that share DNA, living space, and self interest (if an organism without consciousness can be said to have self interest). They live together symbiotically because it is more conducive to their survival to combine their efforts, but they are not really one single organism. In fact, your consciousness is a result of chemicals reacting with your brain cells (as far as we can know scientifically at this point in time), so YOU aren't even really alive at all. You (your consciousness) are really just a mechanism created by a collective of organisms to coordinate their efforts to collect resources, reproduce, and avoid danger.

So I ask you, what real value does evolutionary complexity or consciousness (or self-determination or whatever) even have as a criteria for deciding whether or not an animal should or should not be eaten. I'm not really trying to sway you one way or another, just trying to get you to question your curent position of what constitutes...life deserving of not being killed for food, or whatever. And it's also an excuse for some philosophical wankery.:thumb:

it's just a sort of "sapiency" yardstick for me - if animals aren't capable of having that (a certain degree of sapiency) i don't see why they can't be bred for food

about evolution, it's been several million years since homo sapiens appeared, shouldn't they be a next step in humans by now? like people with green antennae to communicate telepathically or something, i find fault with Darwin.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1080082)

about evolution, it's been several million years since homo sapiens appeared, shouldn't they be a next step in humans by now? like people with green antennae to communicate telepathically or something, i find fault with Darwin.....

humans have changed slightly but no drastic changes where we needed to change to adapt to our environment only slight ones.

The webbing between our feet is an example of one.

Also the functionality of our appendix or lack there of I should say.

Even though there are wild claims that people think our appendix is still useful for something, I don't recall what exactly but I remember reading an article on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1080082)

it's just a sort of "sapiency" yardstick for me - if animals aren't capable of having that (a certain degree of sapiency) i don't see why they can't be bred for food

But what's so special about being sentient? Why can't you be eaten as food?

Quote:

Are you kidding? As much as human civilization has evoled in the last few thousand years, and you don't think we're evolving?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1080858)

But what's so special about being sentient? Why can't you be eaten as food?

Are you kidding? As much as human civilization has evoled in the last few thousand years, and you don't think we're evolving?

it's my own judmental yardstick, as long as animals are just that stupid and non-human, i believe we can eat them

i'm not talking abut civilisation, i'm talking about the physiology of humans, there's not much change for the past million or so years

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1080924)

i'm not talking abut civilisation, i'm talking about the physiology of humans, there's not much change for the past million or so years

You'd be surprised. I'm 5'10". Back in the Middle Ages, somebody who managed to hit that would probably be considered a giant, whereas now I'm just normal size. Humans have evolved in many subtle ways, and it's not just about our bodies. Our minds, understanding, even human nature is beginning to evolve. We haven't had any huge physical changes because they would probably take millions more years to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1080924)

it's my own judmental yardstick, as long as animals are just that stupid and non-human, i believe we can eat them

So it's not a moral argument for you. They can't stop you so they can go to hell?

Quote:

i'm not talking abut civilisation, i'm talking about the physiology of humans, there's not much change for the past million or so years

Social structure is one of the most profound evolutionary developments in the history of the world. Where do you think you'd be right now if your ancestors had never thought, "Hey, you know maybe me and Ted should hand out more often. It's one more pair of eyes to watch my back and we can get food more easily."? It's even responsible for making us smarter. An animal that lives in a herd has to have the brain capacity to distinguish between the different individuals in it's group, recognize the interpersonal relationships going on in the group, recognize it's own place in those relationships, etc, etc, etc while a single organism has only itself to occupy it's mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1081278)

So it's not a moral argument for you. They can't stop you so they can go to hell?

it is some sort of moral criteria - if they haven't reached a state of "sapiency", where I feel I'm in the wrong for killing them or at least encouraging them to be killed, I figger it's alright then...

i mean, i'll draw the line at breeding dogs for food, as they seem to have some sort of "personality"

then again, saying that, I wouln't mind having a taste of dog just to know what it tastes like

In some parts of Africa there are some tribes that eat their dead kin in order to honor them. It makes sense to me and it's something that I might have to do if I was a missionary in those parts. They only eat relatives and members of the community who have died of natural causes and they get rid of all their worldly possessions in their way of dealing with the death of a loved one. Some people may find that sickening, but I actually find it as a beautiful concept. The thought of having that person inside you forever is mind boggling.

So guys, if you were living with one of those tribes for a while would you take part of those rituals, or would you rather fall out of an airplane without a parachute? I think I might be able to get away with a little nibble, only to honor the tribe and be respectful.