Is it okay for vegans to eat oysters?

[Busty St Clare]

I wear fur and I'd eat dolphin. I am no monster I just accept that the world involves consumption and recycling of energy. Like L2R I see animals and plants as equals and do not think intelligence should dictate whether something should be eaten. That's unless of course that dolphin is going to come up with a cure for cancer if I let him live.

You can choose ethically not to eat factory farmed animals just as you can choose organic farmed vegetables. If taking another life is wrong then surely those intelligent dolphins should be held just as accountable for their murderous diet as humans. Why don't we try and ensure we convert as many dolphins to a vego diet?

 

[TheDeceased]

Because dolphins are eating what they are supposed to eat. They have been known to save other species that do not exist in their diet: whales, people, dogs, etc.

We evolved from a species that consumed mainly insects, fruit and nuts. Since we developed technology we have disrupted the food chain by consuming everything.

Dolphins are not food.

Although large sharks eat them occasionally (very rarely), dolphins (especially larger dolphins such as the bottlenose) are not in the sharks natural diet.

Dolphins are at the top of the food chain.

They are not supposed to be our food.

They are like us.

Are you going to come up with a cure for cancer?

If a dolphin saw you drowning it would save you, but you don't see a problem eating it?

In terms of fur, there are alternatives to fur that don't require the killing of animals, or anything at all. To eat you have to kill something, whether it's animal or vegetable, but for clothing the death of a small animal (or a dozen or so small animals for a single coat) is unnecessary. Isn't it?

 

[TheDeceased]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/15936/

So if you were in Japan, you'd eat dolphin?

 

[TheDeceased]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh6d3wFlL6E

^Watch this if you can. (WARNING: almost made me physically sick. I had to stop it.)

 

[L2R]

I don't put myself into situations where I cannot speak my mind. I don't have business associates but if I saw someone beating a child I would say something regardless of whether or not it was my uncle or the President of France. This gets me in trouble a lot.

For starters my chinese is shithouse, so conversing in any way is exceedingly difficult, especially over philosophical subjects. Even if i could speak freely, i'd still refrain from getting upset. The value of getting upset over an ideal is not near the value of the relationship i have with my inlaws.

If someone feeds you a human baby or chimpanzee without telling you first, that is seriously fucked up. I would object much more aggressively than to the child beating thing. This way, they know next time not to serve people human/monkey meat without a disclaimer.

To say/do nothing is wrong IMO.

I'm talking of tact, not of silence.

Choosing not to wear fur is a boycott in the same sense as choosing not to eat dolphin meat.

I don't understand how you don't think it works given supply on demand.

i don't think furs and food can be compared like this, but you're right about the fur boycott. I take back my too broad statement that they never work.



But by eating meat aren't you directly contributing to animal cruelty? Regardless of whether or not you choose your food conscientiously, livestock in terms of big industry is never treated well. Free range farms are horrible. They're not as bad as factory farms, but still.

It sounds like you're supporting a campaign against something that you yourself are part of.

Do you see the difference between wood and metal or carbon dioxide and oxygen?
...

Contextually, my statement was clearly with reference to deciding what food i eat. I do not differentiate my ethical view of food between the labels "animal" and "vegetable". The reason for this is they both connote animate life.
i would become a breatharian if i could, and avoid eating both. I just don't see the value in discriminating on that particular point between them.

 

[TheDeceased]

I just don't see the value in discriminating on that particular point between them.

Dolphins like the species we evolved from are on the top of their food chain. They aren't food. Typically more intelligent species eat less intelligent species. To not be able to differentiate between something that is intelligent and something that is not intelligent is unfathomable to me. If dolphins were more evolved and they could talk to us, would you still not be able to see the difference?

(They do talk to each other.)

PS. Tact is inappropriate in the face of baby cannibalism IMO.

Choosing not to wear fur is a boycott in the same sense as choosing not to eat dolphin meat.

I don't understand how you don't think it works given supply on demand.
i don't think furs and food can be compared like this, but you're right about the fur boycott.

What's the difference between boycotting fur and boycotting dolphin meat?

 

[L2R]

Because dolphins are eating what they are supposed to eat. They have been known to save other species that do not exist in their diet: whales, people, dogs, etc.

We evolved from a species that consumed mainly insects, fruit and nuts. Since we developed technology we have disrupted the food chain by consuming everything.

Well actually, we were omnivores long before we developed any technology. Our ancestors' teeth demonstrate this.

Busty, L2R - Do you see micro-organisms as the same as plants/animals?

If not, why not?

If so, you mass murder micro-organisms on a daily basis so why not mass murder animals?

life is life. i don't mass murder animals, cuz i have lots of other things to do. i don't do quite a lot of things actually. even if i had the time i would probably still not mass murder animals. as opposed to micro-organisms, there are a much more finite supply of them (for one thing).

 

[TheDeceased]

Well actually, we were omnivores long before we developed any technology. Our ancestors' teeth demonstrate this.

Okay, as we evolved we started eating smaller food animals before technology. The point remains. We shouldn't be eating the kings of this planet. We shouldn't be eating tigers and dolphins. They were never meant to be food. They are like us. The food chain points downwards.

life is life.

So animals are equatable with plants/micro-organisms. Okay,

even if i had the time i would probably still not mass murder animals.

Would you feel worse killing ten percent of the dolphins in the world or ten percent of a mirco-organism that causes food poisoning?

as opposed to micro-organisms, there are a much more finite supply of them (for one thing).

What are the other things that separate them? (I'm going somewhere with this, humor me.)

 

[L2R]

Okay, as we evolved we started eating smaller food animals before technology. The point remains. We shouldn't be eating the kings of this planet. We shouldn't be eating tigers and dolphins. They were never meant to be food. They are like us. The food chain points downwards.

I don't eat tigers or dolphins, but i must ask: what establishes that they were not meant to be our food? If the [x] really meant for this, then why are we allowed to be capable of eating them should we choose to?

Would you feel worse killing ten percent of the dolphins in the world or ten percent of a mirco-organism that causes food poisoning?

that's a LOT of microbes. wow, i can't fathom the number. when i first read your question, my sentimental side quickly decided that i'd feel worse for the dolphins, but if i saw the actual number of micro-organisms to constitute 10%, i'm not so sure. i still lean towards dolphins, but i am not certain.

What are the other things that separate them? (I'm going somewhere with this, humor me.)

(from the top of my head)
impact on the ecosystem, nutritional value, accessibility, taste, preparation methods/time, price, ... wait, we are talking about killing and not eating.

2 reasons
- logistics: it is difficult to kill lots of animals and it is difficult to avoid killing any micro-organisms. the gaines of pursuing either of these do not weigh up with the expense of carrying them out.
and
- i do not take pleasure in unnecessarily killing something.

 

[TheDeceased]

Would you feel worse killing ten percent of the dolphins in the world or ten percent of a mirco-organism that causes food poisoning?

that's a LOT of microbes. wow, i can't fathom the number. when i first read your question, my sentimental side quickly decided that i'd feel worse for the dolphins, but if i saw the actual number of micro-organisms to constitute 10%, i'm not so sure. i still lean towards dolphins, but i am not certain.

What about HIV?



HIV is a microorganism. The people looking for the cure are essentially trying to kill it.

I don't eat tigers or dolphins, but i must ask: what establishes that they were not meant to be our food? If the [x] really meant for this, then why are we allowed to be capable of eating them should we choose to?

Why are we allowed to be capable of eating sand or our own fingers?

Dolphins don't have to save drowning humans. They chose to because they have evolved into compassionate wise animals and they can recognize that we are vulnerable, and that we pose them no threat and that we are intelligent creatures.

Logically as humans are more evolved than dolphins, we should be able to recognize this also.

But here is the main proof: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...hJ3lAg&usg=AFQjCNFK4mI6FZ7XcNPs1LaL48Jsaim8AQ

Dolphins are becoming extinct BECAUSE they are at the top of the food chain and are not supposed to be hunted by predators such as ourselves.

Guess what?

The same goes for tigers: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298964/ns/world_news-world_environment/

And Lions:http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/curriculums/barbary-lion-pc.cfm

Here's some cute baby lions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK7ORlaaW8o

 

[L2R]

What about HIV?



HIV is a microorganism. The people looking for the cure are essentially trying to kill it.

hey now, you said food poisoning! but okay, HIV is biologically incompatible with us. Morality is out the window when things are so black and white.

hmmmm..... considers research to develop a HIV "rehabilitation program".

Why are we allowed to be capable of eating sand or our own fingers?

the same scheme which dictated that if one were to choose either of these, then they will have to suffer the sore abdomen and severely hurt hands as a consequence.

Dolphins don't have to save drowning humans. They chose to because they have evolved into compassionate wise animals and they can recognize that we are vulnerable, and that we pose them no threat and that we are intelligent creatures.

Logically as humans are more evolved than dolphins, we should be able to recognize this also.

not all evolution is parallel. you can't truly compare like that.

 

[L2R]

TD, don't get me wrong. I agree that we are currently a blight on the planet. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks otherwise, but unlike most others, I don't think it is inherent in our nature to be like this. I don't believe that we have to be this way.

But we are, and we'll be kept this way by both those directly participating in such behaviour as well as those resigning to it being our inescapable nature.

 

[TheDeceased]

hey now, you said food poisoning!

I told you I was going somewhere with it. I tricked you.

Why are we allowed to be capable of eating sand or our own fingers?

the same scheme which dictated that if one were to choose either of these, then they will have to suffer the sore abdomen and severely hurt hands as a consequence.

Okay you've got me there.

How about this: why are we capable of cooking and eating our own babies?

not all evolution is parallel. you can't truly compare like that.

Yes I can. Like dolphins, we are evolved enough to understand the impact we have on the environment, to make conscious decisions to help other species rather than being a completely selfish creature set purely on it's own survival.

You can't rely deny it. That's why those political activists fighting for the rights of animals that you support exist. They are the human equivalent of the man saving dolphin.

TD, don't get me wrong. I agree that we are currently a blight on the planet. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks otherwise, but unlike most others, I don't think it is inherent in our nature to be like this. I don't believe that we have to be this way.

But we are, and we'll be kept this way by both those directly participating in such behaviour as well as those resigning to it being our inescapable nature.

Um, aren't you one of them more or less?

Although you say now that we don't have to be like this, you're resigning to stay the same way aren't you? (Saying I can't make a difference so I'm just going to continue to contribute to the problem.)

There appears to be a contradiction there. No offense.

You've agreed that killing certain members of the microorganism family is worse than killing others.

Do you agree now that killing dolphins/tigers/lions etc. is worse than killing oysters?

Is life life?

 

[L2R]

How about this: why are we capable of cooking and eating our own babies?

cuz they taste so good! ... oh wait

Yes I can. Like dolphins we are evolved enough to understand the impact we have on the environment, to make conscious decisions to help other species rather than being a completely selfish creature set purely on it's own survival.

You can't rely deny it. That's why those political activists fighting for the rights of animals that you support exist. They are the human equivalent of the man saving dolphin.

Dolphins evolved in a very different way to us. The reasons they do things are very likely vastly different to why we do our things, even if they coincide in appearance.

Aren't you one of them?

Although you say now that we don't have to be like this, you're resigning to stay the same way aren't you? and saying I can't make a difference so I'm just going to continue to contribute to the problem.

There appears to be a contradiction there. No offense.

I'm doing my part in reminding others that human societies which have lived in equilibrium with nature. I would normally point out that the part that fucks us up is our system is set up around on surplus (put simply here).

You are connecting my choice of meat eating with the hunting and extermination of dolphins and tigers, somehow. Sorry, i don't buy it, mate.


edit:

You've agreed that killing certain members of the microorganism family is worse than killing others.

Do you agree now that killing dolphins/tigers/lions etc. is worse than killing oysters?

Is life life?

yes, my life is included in that by the way. killing is a necessary part of life, one way or another.

also, these points do not support the assertion that the labels "animal" and "vegetable" alone are a way to adequately differentiate what is ethical to eat and what is not so much.

 

[TheDeceased]

You are connecting my choice of meat eating with the hunting and extermination of dolphins and tigers, somehow. Sorry, i don't buy it, mate.

No, I'm not. I've almost finished my round about way of making a point.

You said there was no difference between life. Life is life you said.

But, I have established that you can differentiate between the value of different microorganisms.

Dolphins are becoming extinct because of us. Obviously we're not meant to kill them. They save people. Surely you can see the value of a dolphin over the value of an ant. Right? I assumed you've killed a couple of ants without hesitation in your life, whereas I doubt you could bring yourself to kill a dolphin.

So you can also differentiate between the value of life inside the animal kingdom.

Do you value a 200 year old redwood tree the same as you do a weed in your garden?
Would you cut down a redwood tree? No, of course you wouldn't. But I'm sure you've pulled a weed.

So you can also differentiate between the value of life inside the plant kingdom.

(Tell me if I'm wrong with any of this.

If not: )

Why can you not seem to see that animal life, such as the life of a dolphin, is far more important/significant than the life of a cabbage?

Is life life?

 

[L2R]

my statement "life is life" was in response to and context of the differentiation of animal from vegetable in term of food ethics. i agree with the differentiation you just asserted.

although i think we've been agreeing all along, it was a bit of a dance to get to this point, one i appreciate. your posts have challenged me to articulate why i feel the way i do, and in the process you have helped refine it. thanks bro.

 

[TheDeceased]

Actually, it was in response to and context of the difference between microorganism and animal, not animal and vegetable.

Dolphins evolved in a very different way to us. The reasons they do things are very likely vastly different to why we do our things, even if they coincide in appearance.

Are you saying that when a dolphin sees someone struggling in the water, they have another motivation aside from saving that person? I'm not sure what that could possibly be.

i agree with the differentiation you just asserted.

This finally brings me to my point.

If there is a sliding scale in terms of the value of life, at least in part due to the relative intelligence of species, then shouldn't we endeavor to eat animals further down on the food chain?

If you value dolphins over cabbage, then for the same reasons don't you generally value a large number of animal species over cabbage and other vegetables/fruit/crops?

Isn't it better to eat something that isn't highly evolved and intelligent?

 

[The Network]

So if I feel like eating a baby or a kitten, I should just eat one?

Fuck yeah eat a baby. Those little shits are annoying and contribute nothing except mountains of shit and puke to our society.

 

[TheDeceased]

How about if I go back in time and eat you as a baby?

 

[L2R]

Are you saying that when a dolphin sees someone struggling in the water, they have another motivation aside from saving that person? I'm not sure what that could possibly be.

of course not, you're not a dolphin.

This finally brings me to my point.

If there is a sliding scale in terms of the value of life, at least in part due to the relative intelligence of species, then shouldn't we endeavor to eat animals further down on the food chain?

If you value dolphins over cabbage, then for the same reasons don't you generally value a large number of animal species over cabbage and other vegetables/fruit/crops?

Isn't it better to eat something that isn't highly evolved and intelligent?

intelligence is only one of many factors to take into account. for example, it would be more ethical to eat a dolphin than a near extinct plant.