In hunting, Why is Pride any worst than gluttony?

[Me Myself]

Me Myself,

If humans should not eat meat for gastronomical pleasure, then humans in the olden days shouldn't have applied seasoning or salt or any of that jazz to food. Ever since then, humans have consumed food for gastronomical pleasure.

All those vegetarian and vegan websites that have all those recipes....what do you think they are for? Are they not for making "tasty" dishes? How is that different from eating meat for food, as long as the animal wasn't from a horrid slaughterhouse and was killed "humanely"?

Its not that we should not eat tasty meals.

It is that life is more important than gastronomical pleasure.

The difference is that you dont needlessly slaughter an animal for gastronomical pleasure you do other things that do not kill anyone.

Id say the difference is rather sustancial if one cares for animal wellfare o.o

 

[Poeticus]

Of course it is I was talking about the immune system phenomena he was describing not an actual nutritional plan

If a vegetarian diet couldnt give you all you need, my nutritionist would have told me I was iperfect shape and had a pretty good diet when she asked for blood exams and saw the results of 6. Months veggie diet.

Again, the point is simple: it can be done. When you know how to do it, it is easy.

The only hard part is to change the habit and create a new one.

If you actually have the information (anyone with access to internet and an interest to look it up does) you can do it.

Again, are you debating ADA (American Dietary Association) ?

Dallas has a point, because she's only abiding by the same logic that you are using: Gastronomical pleasure = bad.

Thus, she is saying that both vegans and vegetarians, like meat-eaters, consume food for gastronomical pleasure. So, in a sense, none of them have the "moral" high-ground.

 

[Me Myself]

Dallas has a point, because she's only abiding by the same logic that you are using: Gastronomical pleasure = bad.

Thus, she is saying that both vegans and vegetarians, like meat-eaters, consume food for gastronomical pleasure. So, in a sense, none of them have the "moral" high-ground.

I am not saying gastronomical pleasure equal bad, I am saying TAKING LIFE FOR MERE PLEASURE either of pride or lust(for food) is wrong.

Its a cost benefit scenario.

Does the taste is worth to kill the animal? Should taste be a moral consideration? And if it can be, then why cant the thrill of the hunt be a moral consideration?

 

[DallasApple]

And why does one prefer eat instead of a can of beans?

The ADA says a well planned vegetarian diet is suitable for all people in all stages of life, so we are not talking about survival here.

So if meat is nit necessary for survival, why eat it in the first place?

Why Our Bodies Need Fats

Meat is a good source of fats that we ALL need.

Not every one can find raw almonds and walnuts to eat all day.

And eggs ? They are super high in one kind of fat (cholesterol) and even though I recommend eating one a day .That is not nearly complete for your fat.

And for you information I abstained from eating any meat (except fish and eggs) for 2 years . I have only had after that maybe 1 lb of meat (no beef either) and its extremely difficult and EXPENESIVE to keep up a diet like that .And get enough of all the right kinds of healthy fats.

 

[DallasApple]

I am not saying gastronomical pleasure equal bad, I am saying TAKING LIFE FOR MERE PLEASURE either of pride or lust(for food) is wrong.

Im sorry .

I think KILLING an animal because its FUN is different than eating an animal because it food.

You can't get that ?

 

[DallasApple]

I am not saying gastronomical pleasure equal bad,

And its not "gastronomical pleasure" .

It pleasure centers of the brain.

 

[Me Myself]

Im sorry .

I think KILLING an animal because its FUN is different than eating an animal because it food.

You can't get that ?

Food = nutrients/survival

You dont need to kill to get all nutrients/survival.

Therefore, you are not killing for survival.

Do you understand this or do you disagree with ADA?

 

[Poeticus]

“You don’t win friends with salad.”
-Homer Simpson
- - - - - - - - - - - -
All jokes aside:

The Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology states that many plants can feel pain and respond to various stimuli. How is putting a veggie product in a high-speed blender any different from hunting meat for food?

More importantly, humans didn't get at the top of the food chain to eat just veggies. We are omnivores after all. We are supposed to eat both meat and veggies.

 

[Me Myself]

And its not "gastronomical pleasure" .

It pleasure centers of the brain.

The thing is that meat is eaten for pleasure and habit.

Even without me asking, when someone asks me and I say I am a veg, their first response is "I couldnt live without meat!" (And you can guess they are not talking about survival)

IRL I never push anyone to be veg, I talk about it just in places like thisecause I know pee get defensive, but from what they have mostly said and talked about, they are 100% aware they do it because they "love" meat.

Then if they wanted to stop eating meat, the problem would be habit and practicality: what to eat when out with friends? And what to eat in general to have good nutrition?

The nutrition part is solved by researching about it and the eating out wi friends does not precisely factor in a hunt.

Today, eating meat is mostly for habit and pleasure. Call it as you may, all pleasure comes from the brain.

 

[Me Myself]

“You don’t win friends with salad.”
-Homer Simpson
- - - - - - - - - - - -
All jokes aside:

The Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology states that many plants can feel pain and respond to various stimuli. How is putting a veggie product in a high-speed blender any different from hunting meat for food?

More importantly, humans didn't get at the top of the food chain to eat just veggies. We are omnivores after all. We are supposed to eat both meat and veggies.

Less plants are spent eating plants directly than by reproducing thousands of animals so they eat thousands of olants so we eat them. So even from that side, there is that.

From the evolutionary perspective we had to do a lot of things for our survival that we do not fund moral today. SURVIVAL conditions are not the same today as then. A lot of sexism was needed then. There was genocide (it is believed we completely destroyed a race with the same brain advancement than us) there were strictwr laws (jails werent pheasable) and a lot of other things that should be gone when they can be gone.

Iin summary, why would we live today as if we were a tiny tribe in the forst struggling to make each campfire? We are not. We dont have to kill people that do wrong , we dont have to be sexist, we dont reproduce since we are 14(mrn) and 12 or younger (women)

And I certainly believe all this changes are good.

Worldwide vegetarianism would be an outstanding step forward actually, and many enviromentalists agree to this.

 

[Poeticus]

Worldwide vegetarianism would be an outstanding step forward actually, and many enviromentalists agree to this.

But, what about people that literally need to consume meat due to a certain blood type? And, what about the fact that we are built, literally built, to be omnivores?

 

[Me Myself]

But, what about people that literally need to consume meat due to a certain blood type? And, what about the fact that we are built, literally built, to be omnivores?

Being an omnivore means that you can eat meat.

There are a lot of other things we can do, like rape or kill humans, it doesnt mean we have to.

About people that cant be vegetarian, it honestly sounds like a myth to me.

And even there, if we went by blood type, that theory says that around 40% would do better on a veggie diet (though I dont know if it is too generous to call it "theory")

 

[Me Myself]

This is wiki on it


The Blood Type Diet has met with criticisms for many different reasons,[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] some of which have been addressed publicly by D'Adamo.[15] A recent scientific review concludes that no scientific evidence exists to support the Blood Type Diet theory and calls for properly designed scientific studies to address it:[16] "No evidence currently exists to validate the purported health benefits of blood type diets. To validate these claims, studies are required that compare the health outcomes between participants adhering to a particular blood type diet (experimental group) and participants continuing a standard diet (control group) within a particular blood type population."

 

[Astravalon]

I am against farming practice but believe meat to be an important part of a human diet.

I agree; not all bodies can subsist on 'rabbit food'.

I also think it's important to distinguish the difference between unnecessary
suffering and meat-eating. The line therein gets blurred way too often. Eating meat
isn't the only thing we do that could potentially cause unnecessary suffering. A
parent could potentially cause unnecessary suffering by bringing children into the
world – either the children end up suffering unnecessarily or they cause
others to suffer unnecessarily down the road. Does this mean that no one should
have children? Of course not. It would make more sense to go after those who are
directly involved in the suffering, rather than those who could be kinda-sorta seen
to be involved once enough mental gymnastics are performed to arrive at that
conclusion.

Why Our Bodies Need Fats

Meat is a good source of fats that we ALL need.

Not every one can find raw almonds and walnuts to eat all day.

And eggs ? They are super high in one kind of fat (cholesterol) and even though I recommend eating one a day .That is not nearly complete for your fat.

And for you information I abstained from eating any meat (except fish and eggs) for 2 years . I have only had after that maybe 1 lb of meat (no beef either) and its extremely difficult and EXPENESIVE to keep up a diet like that .And get enough of all the right kinds of healthy fats.

Since going low-carb/high-fat, I've been feeling so much better and haven't had the
health issues that I had before. It primarily involves meats, eggs, cheese, and dark
green veggies. I'm also less hungry throughout the day, and when I do get hungry, it's
not the raving hunger that usually accompanies the more severe dip in blood-sugar
(and the constant hunger) that low-fat-high-carb diets are known for. Being that I'm
borderline diabetic, the lower the carbs the better.

No harm in promoting the cycle of life so that the death of an animal is not in vain

Good point. It's almost as though the system were designed so that death never
really gets the last word. I think that's a rather clever design, and if death were an
entity, it would have to find this incredibly annoying.

But, what about people that literally need to consume meat due to a certain blood type? And, what about the fact that we are built, literally built, to be omnivores?

I don't know about the blood type based diets, but there are folks who literally cannot
eat fruits and vegetables due to something called oral allergy syndrome. So I would
think the alternative would be that they'd need to consume meat among other
non-fruit/veg things.

As an aside, as far as not having to kill for survival, I don't think there's any such thing,
is there? Even plants have to be killed in order to eat them. So yeah …

 

[DallasApple]

There are a lot of other things we can do, like rape

Now you are comparing killing an animal (humanely) to rape? Unbelievable.

 

[Me Myself]

Now you are comparing killing an animal (humanely) to rape? Unbelievable.

Do you understand what an analogy is, yes?

The fact that we are biologically able to do something does not mean we should.

Killing an animal for gastronomical (brain(duh) ) pleasure is human, sure, but its certainly not good.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree; not all bodies can subsist on 'rabbit food'.

I also think it's important to distinguish the difference between unnecessary
suffering and meat-eating. The line therein gets blurred way too often. Eating meat
isn't the only thing we do that could potentially cause unnecessary suffering. A
parent could potentially cause unnecessary suffering by bringing children into the
world – either the children end up suffering unnecessarily or they cause
others to suffer unnecessarily down the road. Does this mean that no one should
have children? Of course not. It would make more sense to go after those who are
directly involved in the suffering, rather than those who could be kinda-sorta seen
to be involved once enough mental gymnastics are performed to arrive at that
conclusion.

Since going low-carb/high-fat, I've been feeling so much better and haven't had the
health issues that I had before. It primarily involves meats, eggs, cheese, and dark
green veggies. I'm also less hungry throughout the day, and when I do get hungry, it's
not the raving hunger that usually accompanies the more severe dip in blood-sugar
(and the constant hunger) that low-fat-high-carb diets are known for. Being that I'm
borderline diabetic, the lower the carbs the better.

Good point. It's almost as though the system were designed so that death never
really gets the last word. I think that's a rather clever design, and if death were an
entity, it would have to find this incredibly annoying.

I don't know about the blood type based diets, but there are folks who literally cannot
eat fruits and vegetables due to something called oral allergy syndrome. So I would
think the alternative would be that they'd need to consume meat among other
non-fruit/veg things.

As an aside, as far as not having to kill for survival, I don't think there's any such thing,
is there? Even plants have to be killed in order to eat them. So yeah …

A lot less plants die on a vegetarian diet than the amount of plants needed to feed the animal to then be fed by its meat.

The thing says certain vegetables and fruit, so not all of them. In such a case, maybe it would bere expensive but rarely it would be impossible to live without meat. Even thus, we could say special people with allergies to brocoli have reasons beyond gastronomical pleasure

It really doesnt change almost anything. Most people can eat meatless and be healthy.

 

[LuisDantas]

As I understand it, the principle that hunting is only acceptable when one eats the meat of the prey is meant to limit hunting for subsistence purposes. The idea being that when one must choose between starving (or perhaps forced realocation under what might well be an uncertain perspective) or hunting, hunting should be acknowledged as less harmful.

Of course, just so many other rules, that one is very easy to abuse to the point of completely missing sight of the justifying principle. It helps that not very many people who attempt to discuss the matter are both with a genuine need of hunting for survival and a desire or practical condition to discuss the legitimacy of their need. For instance, while it was argued in the first page of this thread that Amazon dwellers need to hunt to survive, I wonder if that is quite true. The Amazon may in fact be one of the place were people are best suited to survive on fruits alone, come to think of it.

 

[Me Myself]

As I understand it, the principle that hunting is only acceptable when one eats the meat of the prey is meant to limit hunting for subsistence purposes. The idea being that when one must choose between starving (or perhaps forced realocation under what might well be an uncertain perspective) or hunting, hunting should be acknowledged as less harmful.

Of course, just so many other rules, that one is very easy to abuse to the point of completely missing sight of the justifying principle. It helps that not very many people who attempt to discuss the matter are both with a genuine need of hunting for survival and a desire or practical condition to discuss the legitimacy of their need. For instance, while it was argued in the first page of this thread that Amazon dwellers need to hunt to survive, I wonder if that is quite true. The Amazon may in fact be one of the place were people are best suited to survive on fruits alone, come to think of it.

I argued that but it was aexample.

The point is no one needs meat to survive.

Maybe with the exception of some people with pretty severe cases of alergies.

The blood type diet thing that was put forth isnt even taken as real science for nutrition today and the ADA says we really dont need it.

So... Its not hinting for survival, its hinting for meat, which is completely different in today's world for almost everyone.

 

[Koldo]

NO . One is a means to an end ( killing the animal to get the meat) another is getting a thrill out of killing an animal. Even one you are not going to eat .JUST for fun of killing it.

Can you not see the difference?

The distinction you are making only exists if you are not able to survive without eating meat. This is not always the case.