In hunting, Why is Pride any worst than gluttony?

[Me Myself]

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

This is almost never the case.

In almost all modern circumstances almost all humans can have a perfectly healthy diet without meat.

 

[Poeticus]

In almost all modern circumstances almost all humans can have a perfectly healthy diet without meat.

Yes, this is true. In "almost all modern circumstances", humans can have a perfectly healthy veggie-oriented diet.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, this is true. In "almost all modern circumstances", humans can have a perfectly healthy veggie-oriented diet.

And that is my point.

I do understand the need to kill animals to eat in the past. As we needed to kill killers instead of putting them in jail and be more protective of the women than the men so that we could survive and prosper as a species.

All these are undesirable things in a society that has advanced past it.

I truly believe if we dont kill our posibility to live on on this world, we will actually live in a world wrre most people eill think people like me who ever ate meat were monsters, as were sexists and and people who believe in slavery.

Its a rather sweet sour feeling

 

[DallasApple]

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.

Then you need to convince first the entire community of "dieticians" and those in the health industry there is ZERO need for meat.

Then YOU need to figure out a way that every soul on earth has a plentiful and varied diet of fruits nuts lugumes and grains.(oh and of course supplemented with some animal fats just not "meat).

Good luck.

 

[Me Myself]

Then you need to convince first the entire community of "dieticians" and those in the health industry there is ZERO need for meat.

Then YOU need to figure out a way that every soul on earth has a plentiful and varied diet of fruits nuts lugumes and grains.(oh and of course supplemented with some animal fats just not "meat).

Good luck.

Why? The ADA already said it. Vegetarian diet that is well planned is suitable for people oall stages of development.

(for the, Is it fourth time?) are you saying that the ADA(American Dietary association) is wrong on this statement?

Vegetarianism is obviously plausible. I am certainly alive and well nourished and I dont eat meat

I am also clearly not the only one xD

 

[DallasApple]

Why? The ADA already said it. Vegetarian diet that is well planned is suitable for people oall stages of development.

(for the, Is it fourth time?) are you saying that the ADA(American Dietary association) is wrong on this statement?

Vegetarianism is obviously plausible. I am certainly alive and well nourished and I dont eat meat

I am also clearly not the only one xD

You need to get the message around and convince everyone though.And how to do it ?

Did I ever say anyone was "wrong " in the statement they could live without meat? Where did I say that ?

I don't CARE if you are alive and well nourished and don't eat meat. Who cares.That is not what I asked.

 

[DallasApple]

Oh and I would advize? To help convince every one don't compare humanely raising an animal and killing it for food to rape. You are likely to lose a lot of female would be vegetarians who have been raped and hear you comparing them eating a piece of chicken to what they went through.

So change your analogy.

 

[Me Myself]

You need to get the message around and convince everyone though.And how to do it ?

Did I ever say anyone was "wrong " in the statement they could live without meat? Where did I say that ?

I don't CARE if you are alive and well nourished and don't eat meat. Who cares.That is not what I asked.

Yu didnt, thats why your argument doesnt make sense.

You understand meat is unnecessary to survive.

So you know we dont hunt to survive.

So you know that hunting for meat is not the same as hunting to survive.

There are basically two reasons to eat food: taste and nourishment.

We understand a human being doesnt need meat for nourishment, so thats not e reason to kill the animal.

Then of the reaosn to kill the animal is tastebuds, why do you think its worst the hunter who enjoys it for more time hanging the head on the living room but say, doesnt like the taste of meat so he doesnt eat it?

I dont understand how can you answer so many times in this thread and still avoid the question.

You say its different because its food... Well, so what? Its a needless kill to get food you dont need.

How is that morally relevant? I am not asking everyone right now, I am asking you, because you say that to you there is a moral difference.

Which is it? None of both hunters hunt for necessity. Both hunt for pleasure. Both could eat veggie and never have to kill to put a meal on their plates.

Whats the difference?

Why do you think in this case the end justifies the means?

 

[Me Myself]

Oh and I would advize? To help convince every one don't compare humanely raising an animal and killing it for food to rape. You are likely to lose a lot of female would be vegetarians who have been raped and hear you comparing them eating a piece of chicken to what they went through.

So change your analogy.

I dont try to convince anyone in real life. This thread is not meant to convince anyone to become vegetarian. I am merely trying to understand.

Its a good analogy, you are deliberately demonizing it. Its not the same nor it is meant to be the same. Were it the same, it wouldnt be an analogy anymore would it?

Both are morally wrong things that we can do.

Our species is one of the species who is biologically able to rape. Many other species cant. Are not made in a way that facilitates this, further they are made iways at makes it really hard. Thus, its a great example.

The problem comes when the person assumes, all by hirself that the intensity of moral depravity of the act is one of the things I am comparing. Certainly not a problem with the analogy, but with a frame of mind. I expected better judgement from you, then again, I do tend to expect more of others when treatin gem individually. One of my naivities

 

[Me Myself]

I never heard of people rationalizing canibalistic serial killers to be less morally depraved than those that dont eat their victims.

Killing a non human animal is less morally reprehensible, sure, than killing a human being. What does that have to do with ithe logic not being flawed ithis scenario though?

 

[Me Myself]

I mean the best answer I ve got so far was from Koldo that said it simply was custom, not a particular real moral coherence thing.

You are needlessly killing animals for tastebuds anyways, so what about it doing it yourself?

Then you ignored him when he asked you the same thing I did and pointed you at e same thing I did.

I would have expected to see people at least either having a moral consistency wi the suect or acknowledging they dont but neither of those scenarios played out.

 

[metis]

That's actually a misconception... Doing it gradually has little to do with anything.

That may be your opinion but it certainly is not shared by all doctors/researchers since that's where I had gotten my information from.

 

[Quintessence]

Killing a non human animal is less morally reprehensible, sure, than killing a human being.

Why? :sarcastic

 

[Astravalon]

I would have expected to see people at least either having a moral consistency wi the suect or acknowledging they dont but neither of those scenarios played out.

The only way one could be “morally consistent” (if demonstrating such a thing is even
necessary when it comes to modes of basic sustenance for which we were obviously
designed) is if one stopped eating altogether, since there's no eating without something
being killed to make it possible. It would be nice if this didn't have to be the case,
though. :yes:

For some perspective on how far this slippery slope could go: [FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]"Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too"[/FONT]

-

 

[illykitty]

1- Eating animals mean you eat more plants and use more resources (water, land, etc) than if you don't.
2- The environment suffers a lot from meat production.
3- Most people can live healthily on a plant-based diet, when done properly. Any diet can be unhealthy if you don't eat well, including veg diets.
4- Things like blood types and diet is rubbish, it's been criticised a lot. I'm an O and my blood tests were the best when I was veg, anecdotal.
5- Fat can come from good sources like oils, avocados, nuts, seeds, etc. You don't need a lot of it. Look at any country's food pyramid, it's a small quantity.
6- Iron from plant sources are more easily absorbed when eaten with vitamin C rich foods.
7- Eat food your great grand-parents would recognise, less processed, more natural.
8- Carbs aren't bad, just avoid refined. People in Asia have a lot of rice and aren't unhealthy (Japan has some of the longest living people). It's silly to base the fear of carbs on a fad diet (Atkins).

Also, I recommend to read The China Study or look it up at least, he found much links of diseases with animal products. The China Study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honestly, with a few quick Google searches you can easily find all the info. It's easy! Some keywords: environmental impact meat, vegetarian fats, the china study... Just try.

 

[DallasApple]

There is no argument (from me) that eating mostly plants (non animal) food is far better for our environment.

 

[Me Myself]

There is no argument (from me) that eating mostly plants (non animal) food is far better for our environment.

Bt I d like to know what is your answer to koldo.

You said that it is different to kill for food, but he said that given that said food is not needed for survival, the disctinction becomes meaningless. (i think he put it much better clearly and sucinctly. I was teying to do that )

You have never answered. I can understand why it is different to kill for survival, that is very easy to see, but how or why is it different to kill for food?