In relation to what? — Andrew4Handel

In relation to the statement you made.

I was just making a general point in relation to my opening post concerning how close to nature a behaviour is. — Andrew4Handel

And I'm replying that it isn't something which warrants such a generalisation. Nature can be a poor standard on which to judge how we should behave. I can think of some counterexamples.

I said we shouldn't disregard our nature. Disregard means ignore or place little weight on.

Meaning we should take into consideration what we actually are like as biological and psychological creatures. That doesn't mean we should copy the behaviour of nature.

It means we should not give a false picture of ourselves on which to base a morality etc.

I said we shouldn't disregard our nature. Disregard means ignore or place little weight on.

Meaning we should take into consideration what we actually are like as biological and psychological creatures. That doesn't mean we should copy the behaviour of nature.

It means we should not give a false picture of ourselves on which to base a morality etc. — Andrew4Handel

Okay, sure. But that's all rather meaningless on its own, without going into specifics about how it should guide our behaviour and why. That we're omnivorous is a poor argument for eating meat. In fact, pointing out that something is natural is generally a poor argument in ethics, cf. the naturalistic fallacy heretofore mentioned by others.

I don't think we need arguments to justify our behaviour. Does any other animal provide arguments to justify their behaviour.

Anyhow I did not specify any behaviour here because I am making a more general point which could be called biological realism if you like.

But I have mentioned homosexuality before. I don't think it is possible to change someones sexuality so I think it is futile and harmful to try.

As I also said before some behaviours or traits are like this were the more ingrained they are the less they make coherent moral objects.

I am a moral nihilist because I don't see any moral rules anywhere and if a moral property is not found in nature where else could it be found?

I am not a moral nihilist, although I can relate to the stance to some extent, as I think some of my comments indicate. I am not a moral nihilist, because I think that it necessarily involves a type of contradiction where the things that you say, think, feel and do betray your true stance, which you can try to resist or consciously deny, but to little effect. There's often a kind of fake biting of the bullet involved that I cannot do, on principle. If you think that behaving in a certain way would be futile and harmful, then why would you approve or recommend it? And if, after consideration, you wouldn't approve or recommend it, then you're basically taking an ethical stance, and shouldn't deceive yourself to the contrary.

And if, after consideration, you don't approve or recommend it, then you're basically taking an ethical stance. — Sapientia

You can take an ethical or moral stance on anything without it revealing an underlying moral truth.

There is only so much intuition could tell us. I have things I don't like but not strong moral intuitions. Also moral intuitions or feelings lead to quite different conclusions.

So you're taking a moral stance, and you have reasons, but you just deny what moral realists and other moral anti-realists assert about what that entails? In a sense, it's a difference that makes no difference. That's meta-ethics. My main interest is with your moral stance and your reasons behind it. And, with regards to that, I don't think that, "It's natural", is a good enough reason. Why would it be?

I would say I had preferences rather than a moral stance. I don't think moral ideas can be non natural because that stance is meaningless.

I am not sure what moral stance you are attributing to me.

Has a plant ever voluntary walked into your most merely for your pleasure? — Andrew4Handel

Point taken--that wasn't a very precisely worded example on my part. But I hope you can still get the gist of what I was saying: cows don't want to be hurt, and that includes being killed.

Nothing has a choice about whether it dies or not because that is inevitable. — Andrew4Handel

True enough. But how does that justify killing someone?

We have to exploit nature to survive. As a depressed nihilist I know what it is like to be unhappy with the state of life an nature. It certainly is not Disneyland. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not sure that it's true that we have to exploit nature to survive--it's one way to survive temporarily, but clearly that's now backfiring on us. We DO have to live in symbiosis with nature, but I'm not convinced that means living off of the flesh of other sentient and intelligent beings.

If Dante had known about Disneyland, it would have been one of his levels of hell. :joke:

It is unfortunate but dead animals are part of the cycle of life and part of most organism nutrition. — Andrew4Handel

True enough. But that doesn't justify killing either. The worms can just as well munch away at a carcass after it has lived it's full life.

Isn't a "depressed nihilist" a pessimist? And many of your arguments seem more pessimistic than nihilistic, honestly.

I would say I had preferences rather than a moral stance. — Andrew4Handel

Okay, but that's just semantics, it seems. I can say that I have a furry friend rather than a cat, but we'd still be talking about the same thing.

I don't think moral ideas can be non natural because that stance is meaningless. — Andrew4Handel

What? I'm not sure what you mean by that or its presumed relevance to what we were talking about. My point was that using, "It's natural", as an ethical justification - or, "reason", to use your terminology - is not a good argument. Do you have a reply which directly addresses that? Or, if the above reply is supposed to address that indirectly, can you connect the dots?

I am not sure what moral stance you are attributing to me. — Andrew4Handel

The moral stance that I'm attributing to you is that eating meat is acceptable because of X, Y, and Z, despite the objections, of which you're aware, and which you have considered and rejected.

Okay, but that's just semantics, — Sapientia

Even if you think I have strong moral opinions that does not mean I believe they relate to existent moral facts.

The moral stance that I'm attributing to you is that eating meat is acceptable because of X, Y, and Z — Sapientia

What I have been saying is more like meat eating isn't a moral issue.

I have went into great detail about about why I don't accept the naturalistic fallacy. I am waiting to hear where you can find a morality that doesn't reference nature.

If I was a god and created a world then I imagine it would be odd if I didn't put any moral guidance in nature. And If nature wan't a moral guide there is nowhere else we know of that transcends nature etc.

True enough. But how does that justify killing someone? — NKBJ

Why do you why do you say "someone"? Can we not stick to talk about killing animals for food?
There are lots of reason why we a won't kill a fellow human.

Personally I don't see why we have to justify anything. And to whom?

Being part of nature means that what we do is not unnatural. We can't do anything other than what nature allows. The notion we are being unreasonable seems to be a subjective value judgement. I think lots of things people do are unreasonable.

The justification for killing an animal is because you eat hungry and want to eat it. What justification due you have for asking people to live like herbivores?

The inevitability of death puts the whole process in perspective. Organisms try and stay alive but are doomed to become fertiliser. I think humans hypothetically have a lot of potential for however long they live and losing a human is a far greater loss than losing a cow. If Einstein and a cow were drowning I know who I would save first.

Even if you think I have strong moral opinions that does not mean I believe they relate to existent moral facts. — Andrew4Handel

I never actually said anything about "existent moral facts" or your beliefs about them.

What I have been saying is more like meat eating isn't a moral issue. — Andrew4Handel

But it is a moral issue, even if you think that it shouldn't be. It seems to be quite a popular one, and it's raised with some frequency.

And I do still think that you're taking a moral stance as I described.

I have gone into great detail about about why I don't accept the naturalistic fallacy. I am waiting to hear where you can find a morality that doesn't reference nature. — Andrew4Handel

I don't need to find a morality that doesn't reference nature. I would need to give a better reason in relation to an arguably moral stance which is not, "Because it's natural", and there are plenty of those. For example, my own reason for eating meat has nothing to do with whether or not it's natural. My reason is hedonistic, in that I eat meat because I enjoy doing so. To give another example, other people don't eat meat because they think that it does harm to animals without a good enough reason. Whether right or wrong, they are better reasons than, "Because it's natural" or its contrary for that matter, "Because it's unnatural".

If I was a god and created a world then I imagine it would be odd if I didn't put any moral guidance in nature. And If nature wasn't a moral guide, there is nowhere else we know of that transcends nature etc. — Andrew4Handel

That the world might not fit how you would have designed it is another weak starting point for an argument. I think that I would have left out things like cancer, yet cancer is part of our reality.

And that, for some people, nature provides some moral guidance, is not enough to refute my argument. I might even be one of those people to at least some extent. But it can definitely be a bad reason, and it's quite easy to show that. That's why it is, and should remain, a fallacy.

Why do you say "someone"? Can we not stick to talk about killing animals for food? There are lots of reason why we a won't kill a fellow human. — Andrew4Handel

No, we can't, because they just can't help themselves, it seems! They want to appeal to emotion through language, pictures, or changing the topic to something more serious. It's a shame.

Why do you why do you say "someone"? Can we not stick to talk about killing animals for food?
There are lots of reason why we a won't kill a fellow human. — Andrew4Handel

I sort of figured we'd have to sort this part out at some point. Kind of explains why we've been talking passed each other this whole time. I'm not sure what you would categorize non-human animals as, but animal rights theorists (including me) see them as persons, hence calling them "someone." They have everything one needs for personhood: intelligence, emotions, desires, fears, personalities, etc.

Being part of nature means that what we do is not unnatural. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed.
That doesn't make it right, though, or something we should do. But I don't think you and I are going to agree about that part ever, so why keep bringing it up? I'm simply not going to agree with you about the subjectivity of morality and you're not going to agree with me about the objectivity thereof. Why belabor the point?

The justification for killing an animal is because you eat hungry and want to eat it. What justification due you have for asking people to live like herbivores? — Andrew4Handel

Strictly speaking I don't ask others to be herbivores. I'm just trying to explain my view of vegan ethics that have convinced me to be herbivorous. I think it would be better if people did all go vegan, but I know it's futile to ask or tell anyone to who can't see the light.

If I did ask others to go vegan (hypothetically), I would likely justify it by citing the suffering meat eating causes, the poor labor conditions in the meat industry, the contribution to climate change, the fact that meat has to be subsidized substantially by taxes, that it contributes to world hunger, and that it is linked to various diseases including heart problems, cancer, and diabetes....and so on.

I think humans hypothetically have a lot of potential for however long they live and losing a human is a far greater loss than losing a cow. If Einstein and a cow were drowning I know who I would save first. — Andrew4Handel

Agreed. And I would save a human over a non-human as well.
However, lucky for us, that is not the scenario we have when talking about veganism. It's not about deciding what is best for humans OR other animals; it happens to be better for humans AND other animals. It's a win-win. :)

I sort of figured we'd have to sort this part out at some point. Kind of explains why we've been talking passed each other this whole time. I'm not sure what you would categorize non-human animals as, but animal rights theorists (including me) see them as persons, hence calling them "someone." They have everything one needs for personhood: intelligence, emotions, desires, fears, personalities, etc. — NKBJ

But we talk normally, so... :meh:

I thought we agreed you and I had nothing left to say to each other on this subject? I'd prefer sticking to that.

For me, ethics is not a motive. My motive is that I believe human beings identify as herbivores through our biology & physiology alone; regardless of how we identify through our behaviour. Certainly most of us behave as this strange type of omnivore that habitually cooks meat, demestocates cows for dairy, etc. However my personal examination of the scientific consensus imparts to me that we are biologically & physiologically designed to be herbivores; and that we have proven consistently throughout history to thrive in the highest degrees of prosperity by relying on starch(i.e. Rice, corn, potatoes, beans, peas, lentils, bread, pasta, etc.) as our main source of calories. The Inca on potatoes, and later quinoa. The Aztec, Mayans, and Native American tribes on Corn(Maize). The ancient Greeks on wheat, Middle-east on bread, Asian Empires all built on rice. Meat and dairy were never ”staple foods” in these civilizations, they were delicacies reserved for ”feast and famine”; surrounded by ritual, celebration, and sacrifice, thus perhaps making hunting and slaughter more worthy of artistic representation via cave paintings. Archeological examinations of numerous sites however reveal that the amount of animal skeletons in comparison with the human skeletons of the sites populous, show that these cultures feasted on animals only a few times per year. Hair, bone, and tooth analysis all show that they ate mostly starch.

Compare the lifespans, cultural security, and athletic achievements of the ”Masai” and their respective autopsies; to the ”Kenyans” and the ”Tarahumara”.

Compare the 6-16 copies of AMY1A in our genome to the 1-2 genes each for lipase and pepsin. AMY1A is the gene for producing the enzyme ”amylase” which breaks down starch in the human gut, while enzymes lipase and pepsin break down fats and proteins respectively. To me, this directly suggests that we are genetically prep’d for a ”high-starch, low-fat, low-protein diet.”

Looking at the physiology of our digestive system reveals that us humans share a ”sacculated colon” with all herbivores, rather than the smooth short digestive tracts of omnivores such as dogs, bears, etc.

Even looking at the effect of large scale industrialized animal agriculture that first spawned in the 1940’s & 50’s, which proves destructive and hazardous to the wellbeing of our current civilization type; a move torwads veganism would still predicate desire for ”self-preservation” before it would a prideful mechanism to practice ”ethics”. Such large scale industrialized animal agriculture very well might contribute to 50% or more of GHG emissions, and be the #1 consumer of both fresh water, grain, grassland, forest, and topsoil(which is replenished 1 inch per 1 thousand years).


Now I will start on my bibliography for these statements. This is not college, and my primary motive behind this monologue was merely to entertain myself through writing and submitting a self appealing essay to trigger a megear secretion of dopamine.

Archeological, bone, dental, and hair analytics:
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tpNZAYBXNEMZDm1i7Er9CPth_nCJNiDHMTNflFHSiV303UHU2YN7Jy3NgTO4dAxiQ0qRDQbsO-oTKSc3)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163920/#!po=4.08805)

Anthropology, health and athletic analysis of Masai and Inuit compared to Tarahumara, and Kenyans:
-(https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903)
-(https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/)
-(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajhb.22239)
-(https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/food-and-macronutrient-intake-of-male-adolescent-kalenjin-runners-in-kenya/52555A7D4BCBBFEA54F5AED2B37E1D87)

Genome, and DNA analytics:
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112570/)
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/star.201000150)

GHG emissions:-(http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf)

Freshwater consumption of modern industrialized animal agriculture: -(http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf)
-(https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html)

Grain, famine, deforestation, and overgrazing.
-(http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat)
-(http://ipidumn.pbworks.com/f/DietMatters.pdf)

Digestive tract anotomy and analyses:
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4458075/#!po=0.866337)
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Christensen6/publication/260083597_Christensen_J_Motility_of_the_Colon_In_Physiology_of_the_Gastrointestinal_Tract_Johnson_Christensen_Alpers_Jacobsen_and_Walsh_eds_3rd_Ed_Raven_Press_New_York_Chapter_24_pp_991-1024_1994/links/546e49ca0cf29806ec2eb03d/Christensen-J-Motility-of-the-Colon-In-Physiology-of-the-Gastrointestinal-Tract-Johnson-Christensen-Alpers-Jacobsen-and-Walsh-eds-3rd-Ed-Raven-Press-New-York-Chapter-24-pp-991-1024-1994.pdf)

Is your post a joke? You did say that your primary motive behind that monologue was merely to entertain yourself through writing and submitting a self appealing essay to trigger a meagre secretion of dopamine.

Anyway, no, the scientific consensus is not that we're herbivores, it's that we're omnivores. That tripe can be found on some websites, like PETA, where they obviously have an agenda. It's an informal fallacy known as cherry picking.

I disagree.

Well, it'll take more than your disagreement. The burden would be on you, not me, despite your lengthy post. You can't just cherry pick and make dubious claims about scientific consensus without substantiation. What about all the rest? Surely you know it's out there. An internet search brings it up. Your "personal examination" must have been compromised by confirmation bias.

There are even vegan and vegetarian websites which discourage this, by saying things like, "As much as I agree with veganism, distorting facts to make a point is not the way to go. In fact, it’s counterproductive".

I don't really care what vegan websites say. I used the Entrez search engine for NIH.NLM to gether most of my facts. As I said the bibliography is pending. Most of what I said however was rather specific don't you think?

Biologically, genetically, and physiologically, we appear to be herbivore animals. Furthermore I might be willing to argue that scientific consensus does in fact show that civilizations thrive on starch as opposed to animal foods.

Obviously the true ”scientific consensus” is buried underneath bias from both sides, and even those are buried underneath the public opinion. We can accuse each other of fashioning either of those biases, or the public opinion; as the ”scientific consensus” now can't we?

Maybe we should make a separate thread for that discussion. I don't know if I care enough or not atm to convince you or anyone else that we are herbivores, thrive as such, and cannot sustain our society with the current scale of animal agriculture. Let it be my opinion, let me be gullible, a victim of vegan media bias, if that's how you see me. I'm only here to please myself through discussion, nothing any of us say here is going to change the world.

In the interim of my bibliography, is there anything specific about my passage that you wanted me to substantiate more thoroughly? Or are you just pushing me to do a better job on writing an initial argument?

The bibliography for my original post:

Archeological, bone, dental, and hair analytics:
(https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tpNZAYBXNEMZDm1i7Er9CPth_nCJNiDHMTNflFHSiV303UHU2YN7Jy3NgTO4dAxiQ0qRDQbsO-oTKSc3)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4163920/#!po=4.08805)

Anthropology, health and athletic analysis of Masai and Inuit compared to Tarahumara, and Kenyans:
-(https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903)
-(https://nutritionstudies.org/masai-and-inuit-high-protein-diets-a-closer-look/)
-(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajhb.22239)
-(https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/food-and-macronutrient-intake-of-male-adolescent-kalenjin-runners-in-kenya/52555A7D4BCBBFEA54F5AED2B37E1D87)

Genome, and DNA analytics:
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377015/)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5112570/)
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/star.201000150)

GHG emissions:-(http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf)

Freshwater consumption of modern industrialized animal agriculture: -(http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf)
-(https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wulv.html)

Grain, famine, deforestation, and overgrazing.
-(http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat)
-(http://ipidumn.pbworks.com/f/DietMatters.pdf)

Digestive tract anotomy and analyses:
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4458075/#!po=0.866337)
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Christensen6/publication/260083597_Christensen_J_Motility_of_the_Colon_In_Physiology_of_the_Gastrointestinal_Tract_Johnson_Christensen_Alpers_Jacobsen_and_Walsh_eds_3rd_Ed_Raven_Press_New_York_Chapter_24_pp_991-1024_1994/links/546e49ca0cf29806ec2eb03d/Christensen-J-Motility-of-the-Colon-In-Physiology-of-the-Gastrointestinal-Tract-Johnson-Christensen-Alpers-Jacobsen-and-Walsh-eds-3rd-Ed-Raven-Press-New-York-Chapter-24-pp-991-1024-1994.pdf)

I must say, I’ve always been curious as to how exactly one decides that an article was or was not ”cherry picked”. Does it feel like I probably cherry picked these articles? Was the 1,600hrs of independent nutritional research I did in my time as an access control guard some years ago lead by gullible influences of biased vegan media? These things keep me up at night, they truly do... Forgive the undertones, I’m not trying to be any less sincere then my esteemed critics, and I’m fully prepared to be every bit as sincere as they can prove to be to me... *bows in respect*

https://veganbiologist.com/2016/01/04/humans-are-not-herbivores/

Humans are clearly omnivores and you can happily make that claim just based on the evidence of what we are eating now.

There are also a couple of well crafted videos by sv3rige on YouTube with some evidence of chronic malnutrition in vegans. There is also lots of testimony to be found of ex vegans reporting chronic heath problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HwBtRlyxPs

However, lucky for us, that is not the scenario we have when talking about veganism. — NKBJ

But you are trying to impose a similar status on animals to humans. You do seem to have an inaccurate view of nature because you seem to be implying that it is a default utopia or something we can improve.

As I have pointed out with some evidence, starvation, disease and predation are the natural default and a death in the wild is not better than one elsewhere.

I don't think an animal becomes a person just by referring to it as thus. There is a clear distinction between our different comprehensions and capacities and our ability to be part of the same society.

I don't believe in rights either. I think rights are statements to justify attitudes and behaviour but they are not objectively existent. For example we don't have a right to life. Many children historically died in infancy and if cancer wants to kill you it won't respect you alleged right to life.

There are people who pamper their pets, clothe them and treat them like children. You can carry out a charade like this but then there is a limit to an animals ability and you would not elect them as a politician or want them to fly your plane. So yes, you can act a certain way towards an animal without it having the traits you want to attribute to it.

I think you need to clarify in which direction you're actually arguing. The way I see it, you're making two different, juxtaposed claims:

1. We shouldn't attribute any rights to non-human animals, because all rights only belong to humans.
2. No one, not even humans have, or should be given, any rights.

I think both claims are wrong, but for the sake of the argument it would be good if you could elucidate what you actually mean.

No entity has rights. Rights are fantasies

There are millions of academic studies. You have cited a few dozen.

Providing a bibliography is not helpful at all, I'm afraid. It actually makes me even more sceptical of what you're trying to flog. It's like you're waving a shiny object in front of us, saying, "Look here! Look at all of these links and studies!". It's just spam, really, and ought to be hidden or deleted.

You can forget all of that. You should start by dealing with the foundation behind the consensus that we're omnivores. It's concerning, and telling, that instead of doing that, you seem to be trying to overload us with select information aligned with the conclusion you're seeking to confirm.

I think you really do have a personal stake in this, and that doesn't provide me with reassurance. You seem like one of those guys who goes on Dragon's Den and says that he has invested a million pounds of his own money and sold his house in order to get his invention of fireproof matches off the ground. Well, "I'm out".

For me, ethics is not a motive. My motive is that I believe human beings identify as herbivores through our biology & physiology alone; regardless of how we identify through our behaviour. — XTG

Well, then, by your own premises you are definitely wrong. Biologically we are omnivorous, which should be evident by the fact that we are neither obligatory herbivores or obligatory carnivores. We are definitely not biological herbivores.

More precisely, we are biological omnivore but behaviouraly primarily granivores, because the vast majority of our food are grain based (think all the bread and cereals we eat).