any vegetarians / vegans around? :) (Pic)

[kamaleon]

Yeah right. Nevermind about it

No matter how much I might be interested in talking to you I'm not gonna go and "read Huxley" whatever that means just for your own pleasure, if you can't even be asked to give me a little hint

[beGi]

Kamaleon, give me a break, you pushed it too far, I respected your wish regarding non-vegan comments (I've seen it after I wrote my first post), but I must react after you said all this…

1.) I agree with Rob Mayercik assumptions. And by "our standard" he probably meant western world science model. Earth was once considered to be flat, but we have developed way to prove that is not the case.

2.) Animals DO NOT have concerns or interests, they have just instincts and that is a fact. Assumption someone/something can feel pain, and therefore has concerns, interest and even conscious is not valid.

3.) If you're so morally developed, shouldn't you be more concerned by life itself, and not if someone/something can feel pain or not. Plants are living beings, and maybe they can't feel pain, but they certainly can sense variety of stimuli. All of your so-called arguments are just the means that you justify your attitude and behavior towards your own comprehension of being vegan. Humans evolved as omnivorous, and great majority of them will always be, and no one can and will ever convince them in opposite. If you are vegan, then be one, and don't try to convince anyone that that is "the right way of living", as no one here tried to convince you that being vegan is wrong.

5.) Regarding your "striking evidence", it's so far stretched, and with that way of thinking you could just go on and on for anything. And "commit suicide" part is not worth of comment.

[ajkula66]

A little bit of Huxley has never done anyone any harm...and has expanded the horizons for millions of people over the last century, but I guess that's not a good enough reason...oh well...

Nothing to do with my pleasure...I've done my fair share of reading Huxley two decades ago, and yes, it was pleasurable at the time. And a learning experience as well. But I'm not going to be anyone's "Reader's Digest"...

Enjoy your dogma.

[Marin85]

Which one of the Huxleys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley ?

[ajkula66]

Good point. Aldous L. Huxley.

[kamaleon]

Enjoy your dogma.

Thanks, I will.

[kamaleon]

Kamaleon, give me a break, you pushed it too far, I respected your wish regarding non-vegan comments (I've seen it after I wrote my first post), but I must react after you said all this…

Pushed it too far? I beg your pardon? I'm replying to questions people have asked me. If you don't respect it, that's fine, but please spare me of disparaging comments.

Actually, it was clear to me that this was a post about meeting fellow vegetarians or vegans. Period. Now, people have engaged me into a discussion on ethics, I'm fine to carry on with it, but if it becomes aggressive or unrespectful, I will ask a moderator to lock this and move on to somewhere else. This was not my intention.

1.) I agree with Rob Mayercik assumptions. And by "our standard" he probably meant western world science model. Earth was once considered to be flat, but we have developed way to prove that is not the case.

I suggest you let others comment on their own sayings.

2.) Animals DO NOT have concerns or interests, they have just instincts and that is a fact. Assumption someone/something can feel pain, and therefore has concerns, interest and even conscious is not valid.

I'm ever so sorry to to inform you that animals don't just have instincts. Many animals can have complex mind states and make inferences, learn forms of human language (greater apes have been taught a fair amount of sign language and can establish very interesting communications with humans). It is not a fact. It used to be considered a fact, but as you very well said, it used to be considered a fact that the earth was flat as well, and people have moved beyond that. Anyway, having "instincts" only would sufficiently imply that that being has interests. So I don't see the point of your argument. On the other hand, I am curious that you can explain why you consider that sentience does not imply having interests and why that isn't logic. It's easy to say something is not logic, without further argumentation, your point of view is at best mysterious.

3.) If you're so morally developed,

I beg your pardon? I'm not morally developed, I wish I was.

shouldn't you be more concerned by life itself, and not if someone/something can feel pain or not.

"Shouldn't" I? I think there is little evidence that one should be more concerned by life itself independently from sentience. But if you care to explain your view, please feel free to do so.

Plants are living beings, and maybe they can't feel pain, but they certainly can sense variety of stimuli.

Of course they are living beings. Of course they can sense a variety of stimuli. That is usually called sensibility, or sensitiveness, but not necessarily sentience.

All of your so-called arguments are just the means that you justify your attitude and behavior towards your own comprehension of being vegan.

So-called arguments? I think you have presented little to show that they are so-called arguments. Actually, I really don't appreciate your tone so I might just decline engaging in a serious discussion.

Maybe you should explain me what being vegan is.

Humans evolved as omnivorous, and great majority of them will always be, and no one can and will ever convince them in opposite.

Humans evolved as omnivorous, at one point of their evolution, for sure, so what? I say at one point because there is some hints that it might not always have been like that, as other primates are mainly frutarians, but that is not my point at all.

Anyway, did you hear me say that humans were not biologically omnivores? Humans have also evolved as beings that can can think and develop moral reflection. Humans have evolved into thinking that race should not be a reason for imposing discrimination on other beings, or sex. Maybe there is enough reasons to think that the criteria of species is not anymore relevant than any of the other criteria that were used before.

If you are vegan, then be one

Thanks, I will. I was just waiting for you to grant me your permission you know?

and don't try to convince anyone that that is "the right way of living", as no one here tried to convince you that being vegan is wrong.

Lol, these are your words, not mine. This is getting a bit silly actually.

5.) Regarding your "striking evidence", it's so far stretched, and with that way of thinking you could just go on and on for anything. And "commit suicide" part is not worth of comment.

What is this final comment of yours relating to? I used the expression "striking evidence" regarding the observation that one needs to use more proteins in vegetable form to feed cattle that one can obtain from that cattle, in animal proteins, and that is a waste of resources. Did you actually read what I said? These have been widely documented, these are statistics, there is nothing extraordinary, transcendental or abstract about it. So what is far-fetched? Which way of thinking are you referring to?
Regarding suicide, I used that to illustrate that refusing to carry on living thus causing suffering onto others is indeed a position that can be morally justified, although it is not my own (obviously as I keep on writing this reply) .

[beGi]

I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intention.

Regarding apes and comprehension of human language, OK I admit there is something there, but I'm not so sure (it is still debate in psychology and ethology) if that is pure understanding or just consequence of instrumental conditioning. But yes, they are superior when compared to other animals (in terms implicit learning capacity).

Humans have evolved into thinking that race should not be a reason for imposing discrimination on other beings, or sex.

Not true, that is caused by moral development, not evolution. Human brain is designed (evolved) to discriminate, develop attitudes and prejudices (unfortunately, yes). Why? It's "his" way to simplify environment for easier coping and understanding.


Cheers

[beGi]

Error, posted twice same thing....

[kamaleon]

I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intention.

Apologies accepted. I like to discuss things in a gentleman and civilised manner, so I appreciate when one can share his / her ideas in a polite manner.

Regarding apes and comprehension of human language, OK I admit there is something there, but I'm not so sure (it is still debate in psychology and ethology) if that is pure understanding or just consequence of instrumental conditioning. But yes, they are superior when compared to other animals (in terms implicit learning capacity).

This was just an example. If you recognize it, for the sake of the discussion, then that is a great thing.
Anyway, what I tried to illustrate is that non-human animals are not just ruled by "instinct" as you so blatantly said. There is a wide gamut of mental activity throughout different species, and humans are just part of that gamut. I believe there is a continuum, a difference in degree, rather than a difference in nature in human mental life compared to other animals. Of course ethology is a very recent science, and it is still struggling with its highly anthropocentric and speciesist background, and there is great margin for progression in years to come.

Anyway, from a ethical point of view, a higher capacity to learn doesn't necessarily mean that the individual that has that ability is entitled to treat the ones that don't have it in any way he wishes whatsoever. Take an example: within the human case, do you think it would be right for more intelligent people to have specific rights that less intelligent people wouldn't have? Would that allow them to eat dumb people?
Even the humanist perspective has come to realise that a higher intelligence is not per se entitling to be granted special moral consideration.

As the late english philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said,
"The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals & Legislation, 1789

A position that I certainly subscribe and I would be ever so happy to explain if you wish so.

Humans have evolved into thinking that race should not be a reason for imposing discrimination on other beings, or sex.

Not true, that is caused by moral development, not evolution. Human brain is designed (evolved) to discriminate, develop attitudes and prejudices (unfortunately, yes). Why? It's "his" way to simplify environment for easier coping and understanding.

The capacity for logical and moral reasoning is a product of darwinian evolution. That's all I meant. I find it hard to claim otherwise.

Morality as a brain-activity is as much product of the natural selection as anything else, really. In fact, there are specific parts of the human brain that seem to engage in moral reasoning. If this subject interests you, here's an article published in TIME magazine not so long ago that offers interesting insights in the neurological processes related to ethical thinking:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/ ... 19,00.html

I am not gonna make a claim of altruism vs. selfishness, as that would be a very long debate, and one I'm certainly not familiar with. But if I stressed that point it was only to reply to the fact that you said that humans have evolved as omnivores. They have certainly done so, but morality as well is a product of evolution. And my point of view, is that one can use that morality for the sake of oneself AND others.

Actually, from an ethical point of view, it's a very good thing, albeit ironic, that humans have evolved as omnivores: that meaning having the ability to digest both animal and vegetable matter. That's why it is possible from a biological point of view for humans to be vegetarian and vegans quite easily. It is due to the fact that humans are biologically omnivores that they can digest vegetable matter in a much easier way, compared to biological carnivores.

[Rob Mayercik]

Well, I seem to have really poked a stick into a hornet's nest and caused a buzz...

Actually, I wasn't necessarily trying to comment on Western science or any other science for that matter - I was attempting (fruitlessly, as it turned out) to lob a little humor into the exchange.

It's just that when I read through this, the first thing that popped into my mind was snatches of the exchange at Milliways:

Waiter: Would you like to meet the Dish of the Day (DOTD)?
Zaphod: Sure, we'll meet the meat.

(later)
Arthur: I just can't eat an animal that's sitting there asking me to. It's hearless.
DOTD: More heartless than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten?

(Slightly later)
Arthur: Green Salad, please
DOTD: Are you certain?
Arthur: Are you saying I shouldn't have a green salad?
DOTD: Not as such, but I do know several vegetables that are quite emphatic on this point.

(end of sequence)
DOTD: Very well, I'll just nip off and shoot myself then. (winks at Arthur) Don't worry, sir, I'll be quite humane about it.

I'm sure I didn't get it all exactly word for word, but you get my drift.

So much for my attempt to lighten the mood.

[kamaleon]

Some people seem to be interested in having a serious, polite discussion, so I don't get what you're trying to achieve when saying "lighten the mood"?