Question for Non-vegetarians.

[Akivah]

Question for Non-vegetarians.

If Man killing a Man is Crime.
Than, why Man killing Animals isn't a Crime ?

How are you defining the word 'Crime"? What is your definition based on? What authority does it have?

 

[Milton Platt]

Question for Non-vegetarians.

If Man killing a Man is Crime.
Than, why Man killing Animals isn't a Crime ? Because it isn't against the law.....

Just because they cannot speak, or report somewhere ? Incomplete sentence
Or you think that they don't want to live ? I don't know what a particular other species of animal can or cannot think about.
Or you think that they don't feel pain when you kill them for the sake of taste, or hunger ? Depends upon the way in which they are killed.

Answer me.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Most everything springs out of the bible in one way or another.

Love to seem some evidence for that.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Given that the bible is a fairly recent document, I doubt he'll be able to provide any.

 

[Silverscale derg]

Question for Non-vegetarians.

If Man killing a Man is Crime.
Than, why Man killing Animals isn't a Crime ?

Just because they cannot speak, or report somewhere ?
Or you think that they don't want to live ?
Or you think that they don't feel pain when you kill them for the sake of taste, or hunger ?

Answer me.

Please don't assume my species, I am male but I'm not a part of "man" as in humankind. Anyways as a dragon I speak most creature's language. Some is more complex although most is fairly simple. As a dragon I am naturally predatory, I eat quite a lot of insects and fish but as for warm blooded creatures I take the life of one once a month or otherwise i'd go mad. Bloodlust is quite a pain to live with.

Despite my meat eating I still view all creatures as equal, if one kills it should strictly be for the sake of food. I disagree with humans slaughtering predators to make prey overpopulated so they can kill more. I get where you come from though. All life taken can be respected by the taker consuming them. If a life is taken and wasted by just using the fur then throwing the meat away then that is disrespectful. I don't like being slayed because it was always for sport. The first time I was kind of asking for it to be honest. I wondered what it would feel and look like to be someone's meal so I welcomed it with open arms although when they just jumped on me in triumph saying they were so heroic and brave before cutting off my head and bringing it back as a trophy. I know by body is kind of large but they didn't even try to get at least a little meat.

 

[shunyadragon]

Imo, and I say this as a non-vegetarian, we eat meat because it's a culturally ingrained and difficult habit to break. For the vast majority of people, some balanced form of lacto-ovo vegetarian diet would be healthier, but we indulge because it's cathartic. Much like sugar. Unlike sugar, there is a very real ethical concern that even the best intentions agricultural farming creates unnecessary suffering for something we do not need. If that bothers you more than the catharsis of a flavor you grew up loving, you reduce or eliminate meat consumption from your diet.

If we evaluate the objective evidence of human history, even going back to our lineage of primates prior to homo sapien sapien. It is not culture that ingrains us as non-vegetarian, but our natural evolved ancestry. Humans evolved primarily as opportunistic omnivores. Prior to modern cultures and civilizations virtually all Neolithic cultures were omnivores with a few opportunistic exceptions or adaptation to extreme climates like the Inuit of the arctic latitudes, whom are dominantly carnivores.

Our digestive system evolved to be dependent on different sources of food. For Example: We do not have the natural ability to make B12, and by and large evolved dependent on meat sources for B12.

A vegetarian diet that is vegan is only feasible through technology. Lacto-vegetarian is indeed naturally feasible.

 

[kiwimac]

humans are omnivores, we are designed to eat plants, fruits, nuts and meats.

 

[shunyadragon]

humans are omnivores, we are designed to eat plants, fruits, nuts and meats.

I agree as per previous post, except I take exception to the descriptive "designed."

 

[sayak83]

Question for Non-vegetarians.

If Man killing a Man is Crime.
Than, why Man killing Animals isn't a Crime ?

Just because they cannot speak, or report somewhere ?
Or you think that they don't want to live ?
Or you think that they don't feel pain when you kill them for the sake of taste, or hunger ?

Answer me.

Morality is a construct created by society for human convenience (like money) alone and what is in and what is not depends on the human society alone.

 

[kiwimac]

I agree as per previous post, except I take exception to the descriptive "designed."

I would argue that evolution has designed us for just that by the simple expedient of not allowing others to live long enough to breed.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If we evaluate the objective evidence of human history, even going back to our lineage of primates prior to homo sapien sapien. It is not culture that ingrains us as non-vegetarian, but our natural evolved ancestry. Humans evolved primarily as opportunistic omnivores. Prior to modern cultures and civilizations virtually all Neolithic cultures were omnivores with a few opportunistic exceptions or adaptation to extreme climates like the Inuit of the arctic latitudes, whom are dominantly carnivores.

Our digestive system evolved to be dependent on different sources of food. For Example: We do not have the natural ability to make B12, and by and large evolved dependent on meat sources for B12.

A vegetarian diet that is vegan is only feasible through technology. Lacto-vegetarian is indeed naturally feasible.

We have to be careful making our ancestors therefore us style arguments. It's really the same sort of non-sequitor that Paleo dieters use to say we shouldn't eat potatoes and corn because they are not what out ancestors ate. Using technology to make vitamins and minerals more accessible isn't a bad thing, and they can grow colonies of b12 producing yeasts then fortify food.
But veganism is inaccessible to many (myself included). Lacto-ovo vegetarianism is accessible to pretty much everyone. And by all research is healther than eating meat regularly. We mostly just eat meat regularly because we like it not because it' the healthy or natural thing to do.

 

[shunyadragon]

We have to be careful making our ancestors therefore us style arguments. It's really the same sort of non-sequitor that Paleo dieters use to say we shouldn't eat potatoes and corn because they are not what out ancestors ate. Using technology to make vitamins and minerals more accessible isn't a bad thing, and they can grow colonies of b12 producing yeasts then fortify food.
But veganism is inaccessible to many (myself included). Lacto-ovo vegetarianism is accessible to pretty much everyone. And by all research is healther than eating meat regularly. We mostly just eat meat regularly because we like it not because it' the healthy or natural thing to do.

You are in a way just rewording what I described except . . .

First, it is non-sequitor to equate the Paleo diet fad, with the evolution of human diet, the science of diet, and the diet of our ancestors. The Paleo diet is fundamentally flawed, and our ancestors we evolved from were not dominantly carnivores. They were classic opportunistic omnivores and eating virtually everything remotely edible including insects. In fact the dominate diet in the contemporary world is higher in meat than the Paleo cultures. The only examples of dominantly carnivore diets are later adaptations to arctic climates as humans migrated north like the Inuit tribes, and related peoples over the recent millennia. Even our Neanderthal cousins diet, though higher in meat, is now considered higher in vegetable foods than previously thought.

Second, the argument against high-glycemic carbohydrates in our diet is not a 'style' issue. There are actual science behind the health problems related to high glycemic foods, like corn, potatoes, sugar and white flour, and yes this correlates to how our digestive system evolved. The high glycemic foods all equate to sugar in our diet, which cause high incidence of diabetes, obesity, cancer, and other health problems. This does equate to how our diet and digestive system evolved.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You are in a way just rewording what I described except . . .

First, it is non-sequitor to equate the Paleo diet fad, with the evolution of human diet, the science of diet, and the diet of our ancestors. The Paleo diet is fundamentally flawed, and our ancestors we evolved from were not dominantly carnivores. They were classic opportunistic omnivores and eating virtually everything remotely edible including insects. In fact the dominate diet in the contemporary world is higher in meat than the Paleo cultures. The only examples of dominantly carnivore diets are later adaptations to arctic climates as humans migrated north like the Inuit tribes, and related peoples over the recent millennia. Even our Neanderthal cousins diet, though higher in meat, is now considered higher in vegetable foods than previously thought.

Second, the argument against high-glycemic carbohydrates in our diet is not a 'style' issue. There are actual science behind the health problems related to high glycemic foods, like corn, potatoes, sugar and white flour, and yes this correlates to how our digestive system evolved. The high glycemic foods all equate to sugar in our diet, which cause high incidence of diabetes, obesity, cancer, and other health problems. This does equate to how our diet and digestive system evolved.

The Paleo diet don't make a glycemic distinction except when they'e attempting to make a science based case aganst food produced by pure agriculturalism. However, bread, for example, is banned but melons are not even though the latter is higher on the GI. Same with milk and legumes, which are lower than many allowed fruits. It's more theming than science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The Paleo diet don't make a glycemic distinction except when they'e attempting to make a science based case against food produced by pure agriculturalism. However, bread, for example, is banned but melons are not even though the latter is higher on the GI. Same with milk and legumes, which are lower than many allowed fruits. It's more theming than science.

We are probably talking about a different Paleo Diet. I will address this after I check. The Paleo Diet you appear to describe food not produced by commercial agriculture, which is unrealistic.

Themeing? The basis remains science. Bread would not be a problem in a reasonable diet if it is a coarse whole grain bread.

 

[Sleeppy]

Question for Non-vegetarians.

If Man killing a Man is Crime.
Than, why Man killing Animals isn't a Crime ?

Just because they cannot speak, or report somewhere ?
Or you think that they don't want to live ?
Or you think that they don't feel pain when you kill them for the sake of taste, or hunger ?

Answer me.

New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants


Enjoy.

 

[gnomon]

Question for Non-vegetarians.

If Man killing a Man is Crime.
Than, why Man killing Animals isn't a Crime ?

Just because they cannot speak, or report somewhere ?
Or you think that they don't want to live ?
Or you think that they don't feel pain when you kill them for the sake of taste, or hunger ?

Answer me.

When you go study the Inuit and other Arctic cultures which absolutely have to rely upon animal products, as well as the Saharan cultures that rely on animal products.......as well as every other animal which relies upon animal products.....

Because they don't have the luxury of having food from a vast geographical difference delivered to them upon demand.......

You answer me.

Or are you culturally insensitive?

Or are you just stupid?