yukio_michael said:Also, I'm re-iterating what Sensuikan San had mentioned, one of the primary drives towards human dominance over other species was our physiological makeup, a large brain was thought necissary to evolve before bipedal movement--- Young huamns also have better learning an co-operative skills than other animals due to the nature of their brains.
I think it's obvious that humans were extremely well adapted to hunting animals which would have been quite capable of killing them otherwise. I don't think they took up the practice of hunting 'on a whim'...
The fact that you say that you are leaving this argument seems almost like you are giving up simply because nobody can see just how correct you feel your opinions are.
Your modus operandi in all of these responses (and similar to many vegans) has been simply to argue moreso---
Part of reasonable discourse is sometimes conceding certain points to the other person,
...that is unless you simply refuse to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, in which case, you've wasted everyones time because there is absolutely no point in debating someone who will by no means concede that anything they say might possibly be wrong.
Sensuikan San said:As for proving to you my "assertion" that I have been to the Far North, on your demand .... that is something I confess to finding mildly offensive. I therefore ask you directly (not rhetorically) ... are you calling me a liar?
Sensuikan San said:Conversely ... your own cloak of anonymity is complete! What can I say? By your own rationale ...should I assume that you even exist?
Sansuikan-san: Then - stop torturing yourself, man!
Sensuikan San said:Then I would give strong consideration towards not wearing imported clothing made by child-labor in several countries of this great world of ours!
sabro said:What do you think of the native Inuit whale hunt that takes place once a year?
So, I suppose by your logic someone who would actually wish death upon someone via cancer is actually more moralistically sound than someone who eats meat? Maybe we should just indiscriminately round people up and torture them at black sites until they learn the errors of their dietary ways.Aussie_Chick said:If consuming whale meat DOES cause cancer for whatever reason, then so be it. The peoples who eat whale meat deserve it, if not cancer being too lenient a retaliation for wanting to destroy these magnificent creatures. Only the scum of the earth could bring themselves to harm these creatures. Or devour them.
Sensuikan San said:C'mon! Everybody can use an extra fifty!
Sensuikan San said:This is where I can't be sure wether you're playing with my words, or simply misread an admittedly badly constructed sentence.
I believe I wrote: "I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one!
But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!"
By this - I should probably have written "If you were a zoologist - you wouldn't be worth fifty bucks a year!" (Based on your analysis of the hunting capabilities of homosapiens.)
Sensuikan San said:As pointed out in my first paragraph ... my background is quite clear, and freely available to all. Any claim that I may have been trying to assert that I am what I am not is simply wrong. And pompous demands for accreditation to suit your whim .... surely, are approaching the preposterous.
Sensuikan San said:"Who the hell do you think you are?"
And what, in heaven's name, is your real agenda?
Cordially,
ﾆ淡ﾆ停?｡ﾆ停?彈/QUOTE]
Heaven and Hell probably don`t exist (well -- not as we are lead to believe in the Biblical paradigm).
I am just a poster with opinions who enjoys learning other perspectives through debate and if possible, moving others on the spectrum of their beliefs. That`s all. That`s all you need to know because I don`t assert anything based on my professional or my accredidation/laurals.
My agenda is to put forth my opinion and to sharpen my arguments so that I will be more effective in affecting change.
Cordially,
Strongvoicesforward.
;-)
sabro said:The evolution argument is intriguing: Primates have canines and almost all primates are omnivores. The proportion of meat to plants is rather small,
Also the arrangement of our sense organs- binocular vision and bilateral hearing is more common among hunters, not strict herbivores and the adaptation to be able to eat this amount of meat- given the digestive enzymes and micronutrient requirements we now have has to be a recent development. I'm sure this proves nothing, but it is interesting.
sabro said:Raising animals for meat does consume an inordinate amount of fresh water and agricultural produce. You could reasonably raise the world's food and water supply by cutting back on meat production or eliminating it entirely. (Then the population would swell and we would all die of starvation and disease all over again.)
sabro said:On issues of zoology and evolution I will defer to the actual zoologist as I am merely a high school administrator.
bossel said:Sorry, but the current low life expectancy of Eskimos is probably mostly due to ...
Never understood this argument. Have you ever looked at Gorilla canines?
I'm not advocating whale meat--- personally, I don't care. I believe in the preservation of some species based on ecology and extinction--- but I have no personal qualms about someone eating a whale because it happens to be a beautiful sea creature... when a whale writes a sonnet about how it doesn't like to be eaten, maybe I'll change my mind.Aussie_Chick said:Heh no if i had my way whales would be free of danger and being eaten by barbaric people with the knowledge of a caveman. Get with the times. Not everything that lives has to be eaten.
strongvoicesforward said:What are you talking about? You said you wouldn`t give it to me. But, if you did, I`d give it to ALF so they could do a number on a moored whaling ship they caught off guard.**
btw, they (ALF) have sunk whaling ships in the past.
I'm cautious, esp. when speaking from memory only.strongvoicesforward said:You, too, don`t seem so certain to declare an absolute.
Just my point.A gorilla is almost entirely vegetarian. That tells us the teeth mainly serve another purpose. They usually bear them when threatened and therefore probably have developed as a part of their anatomy for defense, rather than seizing, holding, and ripping prey for meat consumption.
strongvoicesforward said:Are you suggesting certain starvation in the short run is a better choice than possible starvation in the long run? Or is the paranthetical statement one of futility? -- do nothing to change because starvation will always be with us (i.e. let`s not be efficient with our recourses because it will lead us to no better situation).
strongvoicesforward said:Do you defer to assertions of accredidation blindly? Do you defer to professionals even after their accredidation is confirmed blindly -- not taking into account they could be of ill repute amongst peers?
I think you said that we were 'meat eaters of convenience', meaning that we didn't really need to eat meat, but it was societally convenient for us to do so, rather than a natural part of our rise in dominance.strongvoicesforward said:I don`t think I had made any absolute statements of declaration, did I?
I'd say that the agression comes from the medula oblongata, as evolved from reptile brains. There is some study into the agression of reptiles due to an enlarged medula oblongata. The other things, I would say fall under sadism or ignorance. I don't know to what extent people purposely try to 'wipe out' an entire species these days, but I'd say it's not pronounced.Humans are prone to warring amongst themselves on small and large scale, capable of torturing for pleasure, using rape to humiliate, murder, child molestation to satisfy perverted urges, exterminating species, fauna due to irrational fear which conjure up threats that do not exist etc... all due to some "nature of their brains."
I think if you look at the way that social animals act, animals that are in packs or heards, there will be a similar type of dominance by alpha males over weaker males. Nature seems to be labeled with an 'innocence' to it because animals lack complicated motives, but they do compete for food, sexual mates, dominance over other males.I think it`s obvious that humans were and are adopted to murdering, warrring and destroying another of their brother -- human or non-human, where a real threat doesn`t exist, and persists in doing so despite the large brain we have that should lead us to more appropriate behaviour of treating one another and all those on Earth.
Overall I'd say that people as a whole want peace, don't want to go to war (if you look at any of the statistics for involvement in past wars inititally), and that schizms and depravity are brought on by things like anomie, depression, complications in the family structure, drug abuse, alcoholism. Humans are socially, and psychologically more complex than animals, so they have more complex social and psychological problems.Obviously something is wrong with our brains as a whole for we have not found a way to control that which highlights our depravity. I don`t think we "took up the practice of" depravity "on a whim."
I would say a good deal of scientists seek similar goals of peace and learning about our existance, not just how we work, but why we do. Why are there random shootings in Compton, Watts, etc, but not so in Beverly Hills? Who is waging the war, is it really the people of a state, or the state oganization itself?The strange thing is that we have a mind capable of advanced reasoning and one which has discovered the concepts of compassion, empathy, and mercy which can be extended across barrier lines, unlike most of the animal world, but we don`t use it at a time in our history where it could eliminate the most depraved acts amonst us.
I'm not championing it, nor am I condemning it. I'm simply saying theres no moral issue for me in eating animals, though if someone else chooses to have personal issues, fine by me, but I don't wish to be told that I should have a moral issue about it.You seem to be championing meat eating because it is natural, well, why not champion all the other natural depraved things that seem to mark our species? Or, are you just picking and choosing?
I have no intention to argue you out of being a vegitarian, but it's worrisome that people argue others into becoming one, which are my previous sentiments.I wasn`t born a vegetarian. I was argued into it, and I guess therefore I could be argued out of it.
I just think we are arguing two different points. I'm saying that people shouldn't need to concern themselves with the morals of animal consumption, and you are claiming that they should. It's very difficult to get to one common ground when the lynchpin of the argument is a moralistic basis.Are you unreasonable because you haven`t ceded to my point of yet?
I'm simply saying that it's impossible to be 'right or wrong' on a moralistic idea. Even the concept of 'thou shalt not kill' is conceptutally debateable, because you can't say something is right simply because it 'seems like it is right'... Please note, I'm not using this logic to say that 'murder is okay'.Well, YM, then you have wasted my time because you have refused to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, and you`ve wasted everyone`s time.