Quote:
As to your efficiency/sustainability claim, if it turns out to be true - in the future when it becomes a real issue, the price of meat will rise and the price of plants fall in relative terms and the market will work it out on its own with no twisted morals needed.

- The issue is right, how to feed growing populations that are now wanting to have the western diet, more and more deforesting is happening. The market always workout, but the damage and the people that are poor are the ones that will always suffer more. And they are suffering right now, because the demanding of meat prodcution puts too much pressure on the available agriculture lands for other crops that are more price accessible, but instead are being used to grow grains to feed cattle in the developed countries.

- The price of the food will rise because the resources are being targeted to raise cattle, and to produce biofuels instead of food. As Philip Wollen brilliant said in the video: The earth can produce enough for everyone’s need. But not enough for everyone’s greed.

Quote:
As to your health claim... sorry, no history of prostate or breast cancer in my family yet especially on my mom's side - who lived rural appalachian lives - lived off of meat. Because in many areas and conditions your claims about greater efficiency are actually bunk. Your sources highlight what suits their argument, and ignore anything that does not. I recommend doing independent research on the systems involved if you want to try and make a valid case. Also... live expectency overall has risen, and meat eating cultures have the highest life expecencies in the world. In other words, even if what you said was true- people still die around the same age, just maybe of something else.

Some areas are exception to the rules, you cannot expect skimos living out haversting greens on gelid north, so your argument on apalaches is a moot too, the are some exceptions to it.
- You fail to see that life expectancy is not a indicator of healthy, thanks to the medical advancement people can live more, but that doesn't mean necessary with quality. If you see any graphic on the those countries that eat most meat(USA,France,Denmark,Sweeden), you see they have the most dieases of affluency compared with countries that do not eat so many meat. So as you say they will live as the same age, but they will be not in bad shape and take so many medicines like we see now.

Quote:
As for omnivore and your crude meat argument - I eat sushi and sashimi all the time thanks. So do over a billion people.

I do not know your point, but my argument is that we are omniveres like are the so called herbivores, you can feed to them that so edible fish, factory farms feed them with other dead animals, that doesnt mean that they will get the best health out of that. Survival is different of Thrive, and like you choose bypass the info, prostate cancer, this disease that you said your family is free, but that affect so many millions americans and people over the world, is linked by meat consumption by sciency...

Quote:
Regarding cooking meat again... here is another example of one of those big holes in the research of the animalists. First, people also often cook veggies..... bread, corn, potatoes etc... guess what........ ALL TYPICALLY COOKED. Second, cooking in general helps cleanse pathogens whether it is meat or otherwise. Third, look up some of the studies Cornell has done regarding herbs and spices. Some interesting facts - even forgetting pathogens, the toxins inherent in eating cooked meat are actually nuetralized by cooking them with the proper herbs and spices. The reason we evolved a taste for herbs and spices, is in fact because people who eat them get material health benefits, especially when it comes to preparing meat. We evolved a taste for entire categories of flora... *mostly for the purpose of better eating meat*

Can you link a scientific article that “we evolved a taste for entire categories of flora mostly for the purpose of better eating meat” This seem to me a trash argument.
Do the chinese and oriental people that the majority of their diet is based on rice and other grains, and a little bit of fish(because otherwise as grains, at the time was impossible to “produce” in quantities to them to feed armies and the population inside the countryland) also evolved to what are you calling, because we still the same race as them..

Quote:
Now.. as to your quote from Shoepenhauer - completely moot in this case. Communists and Nazis also used the same quote. Luckily, communism and nazism are not now accepted as self-evident.

I think it is worth noting, that trying to take up the rhetorical trappings of true moral crusades like civil rights does *not* make your cause a true moral crusade, or even moral, simply because you try to borrow the lingo.

A rose is still a rose no matter what you call it, and a turd is still a turd even if it is polished and perfumed.

That quote is exactly right for the moment.. we can fill so many examples with the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer, with what now people accepted as being self-evident.

Some people just do accept, and never will, but for your information, that video was a experiment with the audience that a the end of lecture would have to vote, to take out the meat from the menu... Philip Wollen was one of six participants, 3 advocating meat off the menu, and 3 advocating for meat on the menu. After the speech of all participants.. the audience went to conclusion that meat should be off the menu.. 73%. Which proves that people can be educate to do wise decisions..

I believe that for you an animal is a “machine” eh, because you believe in that nonsense which Descartes propose, what most of people today simple think as absurd as you can continue to say
that is retorical, those people “animalist” are just saying nonsense, and are they that have twisted morals and not you.
- You are right! That is beginning of the violent oposition taking place.. (but not physical violence, but the violence with words)..
- I can almost feel that you are trying to attack me with empty words, my arguments are always trying explaining my point of view, and never I do try to attack with terms like “twisted morals” or like comparing to you saying that you are like a nazi, to animals and etcs.. and so on [hello] Peace..

Last edited by Mithus; 07/20/12 07:02 PM.
Animal Ethics: "I tremble for my species when I reflect that god is just." Thomas Jefferson.
[Linked Image from the-kgb.com]