Meat should not eat meat.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:28 pm UTC

Because nowhere in nature will one animal place the importance of another species above it's own.

Also define "intelligent animal."

Saying that Lions are intellegent like humans is like saying "My 3 year old son can draw just like Leonardo Da Vinci!" It's a huge goddamn understatement.

Also

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.


You stated that because I am fine with eating one "intellegent" animal that means I am fine with eating a human and that's bad. That's a strawman used to make my opinion look more shocking and bad then it is. So yeah, don't do that.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:32 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:thc, define 'intelligent' before we go any further. I really, REALLY want to see where you're going with this.

First, explain to me why the onus is on me. The lion-eaters are the ones taking the lives. I feel the onus is on them to explain their action.

You stated that because I am fine with eating one "intellegent" animal that means I am fine with eating a human and that's bad. That's a strawman used to make my opinion look more shocking and bad then it is. So yeah, don't do that.

Again, so not a strawman. I am explaining to you the logical conclusion of your argument. If you disagree with that conclusion, you need to explain why. I NEVER stated that you are fine eating humans, and ironically, it is YOU who are strawman-ing.
Last edited by thc on Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:36 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:33 pm UTC

Stop passing the blame to the "Lion Killers" when you can't think of a good argument. Stop it.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:33 pm UTC

You said they were intelligent. You define it.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:36 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:You said they were intelligent. You define it.

All the while ignoring assertions made by you and others with no justification?

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:37 pm UTC

Call us out as well. We can take it in turns if you like.
Last edited by TaintedDeity on Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Vaniver » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:38 pm UTC

thc wrote:But if you feel that killing one intelligent being is okay, but not another just because it is human, you need to explain why. If you can't, your point of view is inconsistent.
I'm assuming you're referring to an equally sapient being which isn't biologically human? But that doesn't make his position inconsistent- he has a species-based system of value, instead of a sapience-based system of value.

Glmclain wrote:Because nowhere in nature will one animal place the importance of another species above it's own.
While I might agree with "above," there are a significant number of symbiotic relationships between species such that if you removed one of the species, the other would rapidly cease to exist.

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Also, a risk is not a guarantee. Eskimo / Inuuvik / other Arctic peoples are very, VERY carnivorous, and report substantially lower rates of cancer than their vegetarian-eating counterparts to the south. Just because something is a 'risk' doesn't mean you've got the LionBurgerAssCancer Death Sentence.
Inuits may be a bad example, as for at least one group the amount of mercury present in their breast milk was way above recommended levels, due to the large amount of mercury in the predominantly top-level predators they eat, which is apparently causing mercury poisoning en masse for their children.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:41 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote: While I might agree with "above," there are a significant number of symbiotic relationships between species such that if you removed one of the species, the other would rapidly cease to exist.


I realized that but I refrained from mentioning it because

A. Humans and Lions don't have symbiosis with any species

B. I don't think of symbiosis of something the animal is consciously aware of rather than the animal going "wow that's convenient!" over and over and over again.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:44 pm UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:Call us out as well. We can take it in turns if you like.

Explain why you believe killing non-human intelligent beings is not an immoral act.
Edit: or if you don't believe lions are intelligent, explain that.

But that doesn't make his position inconsistent- he has a species-based system of value, instead of a sapience-based system of value.

I'd like to hear him say that. I also am going to argue that a species-based value system is deeply flawed. I'll think about that some more.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Kulantan » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:47 pm UTC

thc wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:thc, define 'intelligent' before we go any further. I really, REALLY want to see where you're going with this.

First, explain to me why the onus is on me. The lion-eaters are the ones taking the lives. I feel the onus is on them to explain their action.

I'll take this one. I'll eat anything that can't pass the Turing test (or we could set the bar lower and say that I won't eat anything that can do the mirror test). If you have a different definition of "intelligent enough that it shouldn't be eaten" or evidence that a lion can pass either of those tests I would be interested to see it.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:49 pm UTC

thc wrote:Explain why you believe killing non-human intelligent beings is not an immoral act.
Edit: or if you don't believe lions are intelligent, explain that.


Again, you define "intelligent being," because it seems to be a huge talking point in your argument yet we still have no idea what the hell it means

But that doesn't make his position inconsistent- he has a species-based system of value, instead of a sapience-based system of value.

thc wrote: I'd like to hear him say that.


I have a species-based value system. Also, it's not that flawed. I am a human, therefore Human lives take priority over animal lives for me. I think you'd find most people would agree with that statement.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby nowfocus » Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:57 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Alcohol and tobacco kill, either directly or indirectly, more people than meat ever will.


How do you know this? I'd argue that meat eating takes up massive quantities of water, uses massive quantities of arable land, is the leading emitter of green house gasses, and releases plenty of conventional pollutants. All of these have been cited in other threads - the numbers are truly staggering. So I don't think you categorically make that statement.

Anyways - a solid reason not to eat meat eaters is simple efficiency. Domesticating a cow around converts 8% (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/78/3/660S/T3) of grains into meat. This is on top of foraging, which adds to the cost. If you eat a herbivore - then it takes 1250 calories of grains and feed to get 100 calories of meat from a herbivore.

If you go an eat a carnivore who eats herbivores, you'll need far more than 1250 calories of the herbivore (as carnivores don't process food as efficiently as cows), which costs much more than 15,625 calories of grains.

In other words - for every one person eating a carnivore, you could feed far more than 10 eating a herbivore, and far more than 150 eating vegetables.

The math isn't exact, but the point remains: eating carnivores exponentially increases the already massive environmental cost of meat eating.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:06 am UTC

Explain why you believe killing non-human intelligent beings is not an immoral act.
Edit: or if you don't believe lions are intelligent, explain that.
Well I can't answer either of those questions unless you tell me how you define 'intelligent'. Sorry.
However, it might be important to notice I haven't mentioned my opinion on the morality of this issue.
Ⓞⓞ◯

G.v.K
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby G.v.K » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:25 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Alcohol and tobacco kill, either directly or indirectly, more people than meat ever will.


How do you know this? I'd argue that meat eating takes up massive quantities of water, uses massive quantities of arable land, is the leading emitter of green house gasses, and releases plenty of conventional pollutants. All of these have been cited in other threads - the numbers are truly staggering. So I don't think you categorically make that statement.

Anyways - a solid reason not to eat meat eaters is simple efficiency. Domesticating a cow around converts 8% (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/78/3/660S/T3) of grains into meat. This is on top of foraging, which adds to the cost. If you eat a herbivore - then it takes 1250 calories of grains and feed to get 100 calories of meat from a herbivore.

If you go an eat a carnivore who eats herbivores, you'll need far more than 1250 calories of the herbivore (as carnivores don't process food as efficiently as cows), which costs much more than 15,625 calories of grains.

In other words - for every one person eating a carnivore, you could feed far more than 10 eating a herbivore, and far more than 150 eating vegetables.

The math isn't exact, but the point remains: eating carnivores exponentially increases the already massive environmental cost of meat eating.


this.

all you lion burger fans seem to be saying how 'cool' it would be to eat a lion. but should you be able to do so given the immediate and growing environmental issues we are facing?

this is not an issue limited to eating lions, of course. but lion burgers are a real nice metaphor for a civilisation that is causing widespread environmental damage for a couple of cheap thrills. because the cost is so high and the cheap thrill so quick and trivial.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:28 am UTC

thc wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:That only works with 'toxins' that don't degrade in the animal. Mercury is a problem, for instance, so eating tuna isn't the greatest way to get your fish fix. Eating carnivores in general is not the same as eating tuna though. I really cannot think of an undegrading toxic substance that pigs would come in contact with that isn't regulated.

PCBs?.

Furthermore, you're assuming that all biomagnified toxins are man made, which is not the case. Eating herbivore-meat is already associated with increased cancer and health risks. Is it really worth increasing that risk by an order of magnitude? There are many downsides to eating lion meat, and I see little reason in favor of it. Perhaps someone can explain the appeal to me.

From the article you linked, right at the top:
"Due to PCB's toxicity and classification as a persistent organic pollutant, PCB production was banned by the United States Congress in 1979 and by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001."
Now look at the underlined part of what I said.

I am assuming no such thing. We can regulate chemical content in meat without the chemicals being man made.

I want links on the cancer and health risks. Don't tell me to do your work. I believe in you and your ability to form a simple citation.
Image

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:32 am UTC

G.v.K wrote:this.

all you lion burger fans seem to be saying how 'cool' it would be to eat a lion. but should you be able to do so given the immediate and growing environmental issues we are facing?

this is not an issue limited to eating lions, of course. but lion burgers are a real nice metaphor for a civilisation that is causing widespread environmental damage for a couple of cheap thrills. because the cost is so high and the cheap thrill so quick and trivial.


Well if it was happening at such a large scale it wouldn't really be a novelty or a thrill would it?

Part of the fun of having a lion burger is saying "I bet nobody I know has done this!"

If it got to the point where depopulation was becoming an issue nobody would want to eat lion anymore since everyone has already done it.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby nowfocus » Sun Jun 27, 2010 1:00 am UTC

Glmclain wrote:Well if it was happening at such a large scale it wouldn't really be a novelty or a thrill would it?

Part of the fun of having a lion burger is saying "I bet nobody I know has done this!"

If it got to the point where depopulation was becoming an issue nobody would want to eat lion anymore since everyone has already done it.


Your first argument here is saying that if a bunch of people were eating lion burgers then no one would want too. That doesn't make any sense.

I bet nobody you know has set fire to a one hundred dollar bill before. Why don't you do it - it would be so extravagant? Oh I know - you'd actually pay the full cost to do that. With a lion burger the major costs are directed at the poor who have to contend with higher food prices from the increased demand.

This is bad ass in the same way that beating up homeless people is - like in a cartoon villain sort of way.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Maurog » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:12 am UTC

"higher food prices from the increased demand"

Wait, what? Eating lions makes the cost of other food go up and affects the "poor"?

Paint me confused. Please explain the socio-economic calculations step by step, because I have no idea how you arrived to this conclusion.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby frezik » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:19 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:Anyways - a solid reason not to eat meat eaters is simple efficiency. Domesticating a cow around converts 8% (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content-nw/full/78/3/660S/T3) of grains into meat. This is on top of foraging, which adds to the cost. If you eat a herbivore - then it takes 1250 calories of grains and feed to get 100 calories of meat from a herbivore.

If you go an eat a carnivore who eats herbivores, you'll need far more than 1250 calories of the herbivore (as carnivores don't process food as efficiently as cows), which costs much more than 15,625 calories of grains.

In other words - for every one person eating a carnivore, you could feed far more than 10 eating a herbivore, and far more than 150 eating vegetables.

The math isn't exact, but the point remains: eating carnivores exponentially increases the already massive environmental cost of meat eating.


In the case of a lion, I think supply and demand will take care of this one on its own. Since lions (and cats in general) have digestive systems that don't process plant material very well, they must be fed meat. But if you're domesticating them as food animals, then the cost of a pure meat diet will have to be passed on to consumers in the cost of the final product. Hunting animals in the open is a lot more expensive (per pound of meat) then raising them in a farm, besides the fact that hunting must be limited to responsible conservation levels.

In either case, the supply of meat will be low. The demand is also likely to be low once the novelty factor goes away--I doubt lions taste all that good.

However, even for cows and chickens, efficiency arguments in general are the strongest ones in favor of a vegetarian diet, IMHO.

Certain animals, like cats and raccoons, tend to get into a lot of garbage (human-made or otherwise) that you just don't want in your system, and probably makes the meat taste bad. The Gross Factor in eating cats isn't entirely cultural.

Thc, you're just embarrassing yourself. If you want to make an argument based on the intelligence of the animal, then it's up to you to define intelligence.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Malice » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:30 am UTC

Maurog wrote:"higher food prices from the increased demand"

Wait, what? Eating lions makes the cost of other food go up and affects the "poor"?

Paint me confused. Please explain the socio-economic calculations step by step, because I have no idea how you arrived to this conclusion.


I think the logic is:

Eating at the top of the food chain gets you a much lower ratio of food-energy-out to production-energy-in. Making one lion burger is much more expensive than making a regular cow burger, which is much more expensive than eating some lettuce, in terms of the resources you use to produce the same amount of food.

Creating the volume of lion burgers it would take to make them even semi-mainstream would take a ton of resources away from producing other, more efficient foods, which means those foods become more rare and/or more expensive, which hurts the poor.
Image

User avatar
Maurog
Posts: 842
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Maurog » Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:50 am UTC

You mean the way the Rolex watches industry makes all the other watches more expensive than they could be by simply existing?

The reason it doesn't is the same reason lion steaks don't affect mass consumption food in any way. I would say it's like comparing apples and oranges, but alas, apples and oranges belong to roughly the same niche while lion steaks and Big Macs belong to two completely different market slices. Yeah, both are part of the food industry in general, but it's like comparing caviar and potatoes.
Slay the living! Raise the dead! Paint the sky in crimson red!

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Malice » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:16 am UTC

Maurog wrote:You mean the way the Rolex watches industry makes all the other watches more expensive than they could be by simply existing?

The reason it doesn't is the same reason lion steaks don't affect mass consumption food in any way. I would say it's like comparing apples and oranges, but alas, apples and oranges belong to roughly the same niche while lion steaks and Big Macs belong to two completely different market slices. Yeah, both are part of the food industry in general, but it's like comparing caviar and potatoes.


That wooshing sound, if you were wondering, was the point rushing right past you. Currently lion burgers are a specialty item, like caviar (or even rarer); the hypothetical was, "What if they became common?"

The analogy is, what if Rolexes became much more common? Assuming the market for watches is roughly inelastic, replacing plastic watches with gold ones for a lot of people would raise the price of gold, and therefore the price of other things that used gold.

In other words, in a hypothetical universe in which two forms of goods fulfill the same need at the same price point but one takes a higher percentage of a shared, finite pool of resources, the latter's popularity is directly (if roughly) proportional to the price of the former.
Image

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby TaintedDeity » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:25 am UTC

Thing is, Lion burgers aren't going to become a mainstream food item because they're shitting expensive and there's no reason to do so.
The infrastructure for cattle farming is already in place with no incentive to change.

As a hypothetical situation you might as well muse what might happen if lions became the dominant species on Earth.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bakemaster » Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:54 am UTC

thc wrote:
Mr. Bakerstein wrote:Perhaps you can provide some credible citations for the assertions you've made that:
- Eating "herbivore-meat" is associated with increased cancer and health risks (compared to what, exactly?)

Google it. "Meat cancer risks" produced 20,000,000 results. I assumed this was a well known fact.

I did Google it. I found a lot of references to a study that looked at red meat (beef, pork and lamb) and processed meats, which is not nearly comprehensive enough to support a general statement about the consumption of animal product. I found references to studies that were even more specific. The one study I came across that seemed more general was looking at Seventh Day Adventists who were and were not vegetarian, but then I located the study and saw that its non-vegetarian group ate about five times as much beef as poultry or fish, and its strongest conclusions do not extrapolate well to the question of all animal products.

And even if we look at beef, what do we know about the beef they were eating? What was it fed? How was it produced? What was its nutritional content? Was it fed hormones, antibiotics or other additives that remained in the end product? None of these questions are answered in the paper. I also found interesting this bit:
It is important to note that vegetarians may have lower disease risk because of their lack of meat consumption, but it is equally possible that this protection could be due to increased consumption of fruits, vegetables, or nuts. Upon multivariate analysis, the latter often appeared to be the case.

...as well as the part about the relationship between the combined consumption of beef and legumes, and risk for disease.

In a nutshell, this is an issue that's not clearly understood; while the study concludes that the absence of meat in the diet along with increased amounts of vegetables reduced the vegetarian population's risk for heart disease and certain cancers, I think they were overstepping their bounds a bit, based on the evidence they outlined. If you can find a better study, I'd like to read it, but I'm not going to put much faith in the citation of common knowledge alone.
I meant that any toxin bio-magnified is magnified by an additional order of magnitude one step of the food chain. And so the effects of bio-magnified toxins are an additional order of magnitude. I didn't mean to imply as a fact that the total cancer risk is an order of magnitude greater. Although who knows? It very well might be.

You've outlined a very basic concept of bio-magnification, here. When you start to look at the concept in some depth, it gets a whole lot more complicated. The concept of a linear food chain is of limited use given that it doesn't accurately represent the flow of energy in most ecosystems; better to talk about trophic level, though even that can be tough to define; at least then we can make distinctions between apex predators instead of treating them all the same. Of course, a carnivore might occupy any one of a range of trophic levels, just not the first or second ones.

Anyhow, when we look at bio-magnification of toxins, we have to remember to consider how we're defining the toxin, which is usually by its effect specifically on humans. It's not necessarily toxic to the rest of the organisms involved, and it doesn't necessarily behave the same way in their bodies. Orders of magnitude are used in the classroom because they are handy rules of thumb; but we can't assume that "any toxin" necessarily behaves this way, only that we might expect a given toxin to behave this way, in the absence of existing data. When there's quite a lot of existing data about a toxin, as is the case with methylmercury in seafood, risk can be quite effectively mitigated by careful selection of species where accumulation is not a concern. The connection to trophic level is there, but it's not as simple as you're implying.

My point with all this is to question whether the strength of your convictions is based on a solid scientific foundation. Because really, it takes an overbearing volume of evidence to make a really solid scientific foundation for just about anything. Nutrition is one of the areas of science with the most exposure in the realm of popular media, which is probably why it's a field that's so notorious for saying one thing one year and another thing the next. It's not that the science is necessarily contradicting itself, so much as that data is interpreted more broadly than it really should be, in order to pique the interest of an audience that has no background in science nor desire to actually read even an abstract for a study. My impression is that your convictions are based predominately on personal philosophy, which you seem to confirm by saying, "I care because of moral concerns." In which case, let's stick to the subject of philosophy rather than health.

I actually agree with you about the probable motivation for eating lion - that it's more about posturing and image than the desire for a unique culinary experience. And I agree with nowfocus re: environmental and/or utilitarian arguments against making a habit of eating any carnivore. But if you want to limit what people perceive as their inalienable rights, you need to make a pretty compelling argument, and "I don't see any good reason to want to eat carnivores" is barely an argument at all.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Malice » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:07 am UTC

TaintedDeity wrote:Thing is, Lion burgers aren't going to become a mainstream food item because they're shitting expensive and there's no reason to do so.
The infrastructure for cattle farming is already in place with no incentive to change.


How hard could it be to raise lions? As you said, you've already got the cattle; just let them loose on the farm, they'll feed themselves.
Image

User avatar
scikidus
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:34 pm UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby scikidus » Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:08 am UTC

Wnderer wrote:This is just wrong. Meat should not eat meat.

But Soylent Green is so tasty! :(
Happy hollandaise!

"The universe is a figment of its own imagination" -Douglas Adams

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby H2SO4 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:19 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:How do you know this? I'd argue that meat eating takes up massive quantities of water, uses massive quantities of arable land, is the leading emitter of green house gasses, and releases plenty of conventional pollutants.

....

In other words - for every one person eating a carnivore, you could feed far more than 10 eating a herbivore, and far more than 150 eating vegetables.

And I'd argue that until we can't keep paying farmers not to grow things and instead we ensure the survival of the human race, it doesn't matter how much grains/food/land it takes up to make the meat.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:25 am UTC

Malice wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:Thing is, Lion burgers aren't going to become a mainstream food item because they're shitting expensive and there's no reason to do so.
The infrastructure for cattle farming is already in place with no incentive to change.


How hard could it be to raise lions? As you said, you've already got the cattle; just let them loose on the farm, they'll feed themselves.

See the bold? That's why this wouldn't work. Cattle raising is economically viable, I guess, but lions would of necessity be far more expansive than cattle, based on the raising method you've suggested. It simply wouldn't work.
Image

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:27 am UTC

@Bakemaster: If you re-read my post, you'll see that my argument was never that eating lions definitely increased your relative cancer risk, but that it was plausible, if not probable. Secondly, I also have a few things I can say on toxins and bioaccumulation, but I don't mind dropping this argument in deference; it was more of a prescriptive argument to get people to stop thinking this was a good idea. Honestly, I really don't care all that much if people eat themselves into sickness. THAT is their choice.

At any rate, for the most part, you're right. Things are complicated, sure.

Kulantan wrote:I'll take this one. I'll eat anything that can't pass the Turing test (or we could set the bar lower and say that I won't eat anything that can do the mirror test). If you have a different definition of "intelligent enough that it shouldn't be eaten" or evidence that a lion can pass either of those tests I would be interested to see it.

This is simply descriptive, and doesn't answer my question of why.

TaintedDeity wrote:
Explain why you believe killing non-human intelligent beings is not an immoral act.
Edit: or if you don't believe lions are intelligent, explain that.
Well I can't answer either of those questions unless you tell me how you define 'intelligent'. Sorry.
However, it might be important to notice I haven't mentioned my opinion on the morality of this issue.

You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral." I am asking you to justify that claim. I attempted to convey the idea in my previous post, that it is almost a tautology to state the following two possible lines of argument: 1) I'm a speciest. Or 2) lions are not really intelligent. (Can you think of any other arguments?)

Kulantan made an attempt above, but it falls short. Why do you draw the line where you do. Why is tool usage or the ability to recognize self in mirrors important in any moral capacity? My belief is that it isn't: when dealing with matters of empathy, the capacity to feel physical pain and the capacity to feel emotional pain are the two relevant "intelligence" ingredients. And if you can recognize those two ingredients in other beings, I feel you have a moral obligation to treat those beings with respect and not eat them, unless you were starving or something.

If you agree with me this far, then we can debate whether or not lions, and generally, other animals, feel emotional pain and distress. Let's have at it.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:43 am UTC

thc wrote:*snip*
You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral." I am asking you to justify that claim. I attempted to convey the idea in my previous post, that it is almost a tautology to state the following two possible lines of argument: 1) I'm a speciest. Or 2) lions are not really intelligent. (Can you think of any other arguments?)

Kulantan made an attempt above, but it falls short. Why do you draw the line where you do. Why is tool usage or the ability to recognize self in mirrors important in any moral capacity? My belief is that it isn't: when dealing with matters of empathy, the capacity to feel physical pain and the capacity to feel emotional pain are the two relevant "intelligence" ingredients. And if you can recognize those two ingredients in other beings, I feel you have a moral obligation to treat those beings with respect and not eat them, unless you were starving or something.

If you agree with me this far, then we can debate whether or not lions, and generally, other animals, feel emotional pain and distress. Let's have at it.

You just did what everyone has been asking you to do. Finally. You defined what you think 'intelligence' should be in the second argument. I don't know what convoluted method got you there, but you did it and congratulations are in order. Good job.

Also, feel free to respond to my request for sources at your convenience. I can wait. Just sometime this month would be great. Gives you about 4 days.

PS: Your argument was indeed that eating lions causes cancer, with no qualifications at all.
thc wrote:Eating herbivore-meat is already associated with increased cancer and health risks. Is it really worth increasing that risk by an order of magnitude?
Image

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:47 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
thc wrote:*snip*
You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral." I am asking you to justify that claim. I attempted to convey the idea in my previous post, that it is almost a tautology to state the following two possible lines of argument: 1) I'm a speciest. Or 2) lions are not really intelligent. (Can you think of any other arguments?)

Kulantan made an attempt above, but it falls short. Why do you draw the line where you do. Why is tool usage or the ability to recognize self in mirrors important in any moral capacity? My belief is that it isn't: when dealing with matters of empathy, the capacity to feel physical pain and the capacity to feel emotional pain are the two relevant "intelligence" ingredients. And if you can recognize those two ingredients in other beings, I feel you have a moral obligation to treat those beings with respect and not eat them, unless you were starving or something.

If you agree with me this far, then we can debate whether or not lions, and generally, other animals, feel emotional pain and distress. Let's have at it.

You just did what everyone has been asking you to do. Finally. You defined what you think 'intelligence' should be in the second argument. I don't know what convoluted method got you there, but you did it and congratulations are in order. Good job.

If you notice, my point was that, in order to make the counterargument, you ALSO needed to define intelligence. I got tired.

Also, feel free to respond to my request for sources at your convenience. I can wait. Just sometime this month would be great. Gives you about 4 days.

[url="google.com"]Here[/url]

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby H2SO4 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 5:57 am UTC

thc wrote:You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral."

Sorry, going to jump in right here. Obviously, as there are lion burgers that are selling more often than people objecting to lion burgers being sold, the idea is that it isn't immoral, as what's considered moral is really what society holds to be moral. Therefore claiming that eating "intelligent animals"/lions is immoral is the claim, not that it's not immoral.

Though I can answer: If they don't have any concept of self-identity, self-awareness, or self-consciousness -- if they can't think about and operate on anything but basic needs (eat, sleep, survive, and sex) -- then I'm okay with eating it (excluding unsafe animals). Does that mean that if I see one walking across my path that I'm going to kill it and eat it? No. It just means that if it's meat is put in front of me or if I'm trying to survive, it's going to end up in my digestive tract.


That's not how it works. If someone asks for sources, you can't say "Look for them yourself!"
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
Link
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:33 am UTC
Location: ᘝᓄᘈᖉᐣ
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Link » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:10 am UTC

Maurog wrote:As an omnivore, I will eat whatever I please, thank you very much.

IFLP. (And FWIW, that includes ponies, even if IFLP.)

Every time I someone say "you shouldn't eat x" without them being able to provide a damned good reason for it, I am extremely tempted to eat as much x as I can stomach, purely out of spite. So, I'll have four lion burgers with baby-blood ketchup, please. Call me petty, but anyone who puts so much zeal into something without providing adequate backup to their sentiments ticks me off to no end.

Sure, there are some things, including some mammals, that I personally refuse to eat, but that doesn't mean I'm unable to put my own ideas aside if someone else wants to. As long as it's a non-threatened species and the meat was acquired in a legal and responsible fashion, I have no objections against people eating whatever the fuck they like. For that matter, I wholeheartedly support eating the flesh of humans who volunteer it. "I disagree with what you eat, but will defend to the death your right to eat it."

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:17 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
thc wrote:You people are the one making the claim that "killing and eating lions is not immoral."

Sorry, going to jump in right here. Obviously, as there are lion burgers that are selling more often than people objecting to lion burgers being sold, the idea is that it isn't immoral, as what's considered moral is really what society holds to be moral. Therefore claiming that eating "intelligent animals"/lions is immoral is the claim, not that it's not immoral.

Sure, for tautological definitions of morality. On the other hand, minorities keep claiming they have rights, and some people fought for the emancipation of slaves.

Edit: in other words, I don't buy the argument that, just because the majority thinks one way, we should accept it as default. In a debate, both sides need to back up their claims.

Though I can answer: If they don't have any concept of self-identity, self-awareness, or self-consciousness -- if they can't think about and operate on anything but basic needs (eat, sleep, survive, and sex) -- then I'm okay with eating it (excluding unsafe animals).
Lions have many behavoirs that are not just about basic needs - playfulness, for example. Sure, you can say "but that's just about survival" but the same argument can be made for every human behavoir as well.

And again, this still doesn't answer the question of "why". Why do you set the thresholds where you do?


That's not how it works. If someone asks for sources, you can't say "Look for them yourself!"
I certainly can if it's common knowledge. It's like asking for a citation on the fact that lion's are mammals: at some point, it isn't my problem. But whatever. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0040325

Now we can all stop being petty, amirite?

For that matter, I wholeheartedly support eating the flesh of humans who volunteer it.

Why limit it to only volunteers? Did the lions volunteer to be eaten as well?
Last edited by thc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:22 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Malice » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:18 am UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
Malice wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:Thing is, Lion burgers aren't going to become a mainstream food item because they're shitting expensive and there's no reason to do so.
The infrastructure for cattle farming is already in place with no incentive to change.


How hard could it be to raise lions? As you said, you've already got the cattle; just let them loose on the farm, they'll feed themselves.

See the bold? That's why this wouldn't work. Cattle raising is economically viable, I guess, but lions would of necessity be far more expansive than cattle, based on the raising method you've suggested. It simply wouldn't work.


That was more of a joke than anything else. Entirely, in fact. Predicated on the vision of a glorious industry transition wherein ranchers import lions and the lions roam the ranch, hunting the already-present cows for food.

In a more serious vein, I think lion burgers should be outlawed, or at the very least discouraged with heavy taxes or something. They're not endangered yet, but look where "it'll all work out for the best" landed the dodos.
Image

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Glmclain » Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:22 am UTC

That's not how it works. If someone asks for sources, you can't say "Look for them yourself!"


thc wrote:I certainly can if it's common knowledge. It's like asking for a citation on the fact that lion's are mammals: at some point, it isn't my problem. But whatever.


Goddamnit dude
thc wrote: Now we can all stop being petty, amirite?


God-fucking-damnit dude.
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:14 am UTC

thc wrote:http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325

Thank you for the citation, no matter how nearly irrelevant. I looked around on my own (By the way, this is an easier way to look) but there just isn't a whole lot to go on in terms of 'predatory meat' vs 'nonpredatory meat' vs 'cancer risk'. Instead, it's mostly red meat that takes the pounding for an association with colon cancer, and red meat can be from nonpredators. All livestock is included in the USDA classification.

In a related note, most studies I saw had a negative association with cancer against fish and chicken consumption. Fish can be predators. Chickens are typically omnivorus in the wild and can eat things like mice and insects and lizards.

Basically there's nothing clear about things higher on the food chain being more prone to cause cancer when eaten.
Image

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby thc » Sun Jun 27, 2010 7:49 am UTC

Edit: you know what? I'm not going to do this anymore. This is a completely irrelevant tangent that doesn't interest me in the slightest at the moment. If you actually want to have a discussion, Bright, refer to my last relevant post here:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=61826&start=40#p2212156

These will be my last words on the issue: first, one citation asked for was in regard to meat (in general, NOT about herbivore vs. carnviore) and by that, the citation provided is entirely relevant. Secondly, believe me, I didn't mean to imply that carnivore meat has an order of magnitude increase in cancer risk. I had acknowledged the poor wording in my first post and you acknowledged that I acknowledged. Why harp on a point where you already know I don't necessarily disagree? Lastly, try a little less condescending. I know what Google Scholar is, yeah? Thank you, though.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Griffin » Sun Jun 27, 2010 11:56 am UTC

Yeah, we get - you believe all meat eating period is wrong, which makes me wonder what it is you have against eating lions in particular that you feel the need to participate in this thread rather than one of the general meat discussion threads.

Basically, everything you've contributed that is actually relevant to the topic turned out not to be true (that being things specifically related to lions and carnivores eating carnivores). As a vegetarian, I have to say that you make ME want to eat lion out of spite. I won't, but when you start alienating allies, you might want to reconsider your approach to the debate.

Back to the topic at hand - While there are problems with chemical buildups higher up the food chain, the fact that people regularly eat carnivorous fish (which have the same problem but moreso), there's not much danger in the occasional Lion burger - as long as its prepared properly, and do not that the butchering a carnivore means knowing which body parts that were safe before no longer are (for example, the liver).

It also won't ever become widespread for the same reason there are few carnivore farms of any variety. Hella expensive.

So my only concern is sourcing (which should be closely monitored). I don't know where he's sourcing his lions, but I hope the feds are keeping an eye on it.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Meat should not eat meat.

Postby Nordic Einar » Sun Jun 27, 2010 12:31 pm UTC

Before I begin: I was a non-moral vegetarian for quite some time, stopped only because it was easier financially to supplement poor people carbs (aka potatoes/pasta) with meat, and would like to return to vegetarianism in the future.

Why do we apply human morality to animals who are incapable of understanding human morality? If Mr. Lion >:3 has no moral conundrum with eating me, why the fuck should I have one with devouring his delicious, adorable flesh? I'll never understand it.

I wouldn't eat lion. I really have no desire to, and I feel like it'd be a stupendous waste of money. However... these lions are not endangered, are not really at risk of being hunted/farmed into extinction due to the prohibitive cost of doing so, and it isn't illegal. Therefore, if my fellow forumites decide to partake, I shan't huff and puff self-righteously while they enjoy their meal!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests