Is it okay for vegans to eat oysters?

[TheDeceased]

of course not, you're not a dolphin.

So you don't even have a hypothetical idea for what they might be doing?

Seriously, I can't think of one.

Actually, maybe dolphins save people not out of compassion but because they're suicidal but haven't the ability to kill themselves.

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.

I said in "at least in part". I'm not putting it all down to intelligence, obviously.

But for the sake of argument, hypothetically, generally speaking, excluding all other factors, answer this question:

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

 

[L2R]

excluding all other factors, sure.



as for dolphin intelligence, seriously there is no way for a human to hypothesise a dolphin's motives.

 

[TheDeceased]

Dude. Seriously. Dolphins save people. They're smart. I don't know why that's so difficult to accept.

Ethology is all about hypothesis, isn't it?

What you're basically saying is that because we cannot get inside a dolphins brain and monitor it's exact thought patterns we cannot really have any idea what it's doing.

Like when a domesticated dog stands up on it's hind legs and grips a door handle with it's mouth, twisting it counter clockwise and pulling on it, the dog is not necessarily opening the door.

It could be trying to eat the door handle.

excluding all other factors, sure.

Okay so given that plants, generally, are not intelligent and that animals, generally, are intelligent by comparison - wouldn't it be logical to assume that it is in some way better (for lack of a better word) to eat plant products (or non sentient animals) than to eat the flesh of intelligent/sentient animals?

 

[L2R]

sure, if you exclude all other factors, but that would be silly.


i don't think you're understanding my point about dolphin intelligence. i don't doubt that they are very complex and highly intelligent creatures, but it would be presumptuous to assume that their intelligence is anything like ours. whilst it can be similar enough for us to notice it at all, this doesn't mean that they actually think like us. their physiology and environment and history are completely foreign to our own. the chances of their intellect to resemble ours is extremely low.

 

[TheDeceased]

I'm not missing what you're saying. You flat out said that you can't hypothesize about an animal species. And as I said, ethology, or the study of animal behavior, is all about hypothesis.

That is what ethologists do. They study the mannerisms of animals.

They don't just assume that the animal they are studying has the same psychological make up as a human being. Because that wouldn't really be a science. People have been studying dolphins for a long time. Some people spend their entire lives studying dolphins. I'd say they have a pretty good idea of how dolphins think.

It is widely accepted that they are a gentle and intelligent creature. They nurture their young. They have strong bonds in their social structure.

When they see animals (of varying species) in trouble in the sea, they come to their aide. This even includes whales. Teams of dolphins have been known to work together to save a single whale.

Dolphins are for the sea what we should be for land.

They are the most evolved sea creature, evolved to the point where they are capable of rising above their survivalist instincts and saving another species.

There is nothing in it for them.

They are just fucking awesome.

sure, if you exclude all other factors, but that would be silly.

Perhaps. Aside from extinction what are these other factors you speak of?

 

[L2R]

dolphins are great, so are killer whales.

Perhaps. Aside from extinction what are these other factors you speak of?

you're kidding, right? what have we been talking about?

it's 1am, do something else. later.

 

[rickolasnice]

^I think talking/yelling at any plant would be good, even if you're screaming obscenities at it, since we exhale CO2 which plants find very beneficial

They did this on myth busters.. control group, 1 person talking to their plants nicely, 1 person talkin to their plants horribly, 1 with nice soothing music and 1 with death metal.. the 2 music ones came out on top with the death metal 1 taking gold So i think it has more to do with vibrations.

 

[TheDeceased]

you're kidding, right? what have we been talking about?

No I'm not kidding. There aren't any other factors.

If intelligence/consciousness is a method of valuing life, then logically plant life is less valuable then animal life in general.

Go on, admit it.

You'll feel better.



Otherwise what are these mysterious factors? (aside from extinction)

 

[rickolasnice]

^ I think thats a very simplistic view to have on the subject..

Are you saying you would kill a cat as quick as you'd kill a daisy?

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

It depends why one is a vegan.
If, like me, your primary motivation is for health reasons, oysters should probably be avoided.
(Some vegans tell me that I am not a vegan because I eat honey. Whatever. Labels are inherently flawed to begin with. I am not concerned with fitting into a club.)

It's like this. ^There is no one set definition of vegan, just the more general definition. Some people who consider themselves vegan may decide they feel all right eating oysters or honey, others avoid all animal products all together. Some take it even farther and don't drive cars, weave their own clothing, don't keep pets, etc. It all depends on the individual.

 

[Busty St Clare]

Dude. Seriously. Dolphins save people. They're smart. I don't know why that's so difficult to accept.

You do realise that biologically humans are closer to pigs than dolphins. That is why pig organs are used for human organ transplants. Despite this I am telling you now I am sure as hell not going to give up bacon and crackling because of some ethically driven argument. I have swum with dolphins and believe me they aren't all as friendly as Flipper might have you believe. Just as humans have good and bad members of their society, some dolphins are bad and will deliberately try and hurt you or be an arse. Horses are another highly intelligent animal (which I have also eaten) that have gentle souls, and some membera who are plain cunts. Humans don't have a monopoly on the evil gene I'm afraid. Is it ok to only eat evil animals?

I have eaten dolphin, it's steak is not dis similar to swordfish and it is fucking delicious. If we are not meant to eat it then something is seriously wrong with my taste buds. Perhaps evolution is wrong. After all evolution is not a morally driven compass. It is a series of random genetic events that by chance helps a species procreate better and more efficiently than the next member of my species. If tomorrow humans mutated and became to super pollinators of the planet, effectively wiping out all butterflies in a evolutionary battle for the planets nectar, would that be morally fine? Is it ok to wipe a species because we evolved to do so? Or is it now wrong despite evolution doing exactly what it has done (by pure chance and luck I might add) for millions of years?

 

[TheDeceased]

Are you saying you would kill a cat as quick as you'd kill a daisy?

Um. No. Because cats are much smarter than daisies and they have a much longer life expectancy. You completely missed the point there. You got it backwards.

We've established that sentience is a major factor. Excluding extraneous circumstances like extinction, what are the other factors? (taste? nutritional value? life expectancy? what else?) What is the most important and why?

I have swum with dolphins and believe me they aren't all as friendly as Flipper might have you believe. Just as humans have good and bad members of their society, some dolphins are bad and will deliberately try and hurt you or be an arse.

I too have swum with dolphins multiple times and found them to be absolutely lovely. Maybe they can just sense that you want to eat them.

Is it ok to only eat evil animals?

There is no such thing.

I have eaten dolphin, it's steak is not dis similar to swordfish and it is fucking delicious. If we are not meant to eat it then something is seriously wrong with my taste buds.

Eating dolphins is wrong. So is fur. You clearly have absolutely no regard for the animal kingdom. They are an endangered species. If you're talking about the mammal dolphins, which I think you are - it is actually illegal to eat them.

I wonder why that is.

Your taste buds don't prove anything, just like how if you ate a baby and it tasted good that wouldn't prove that you're supposed to eat it.

L2R brought up the idea that since we are capable of eating them, we should eat them. But we haven't evolved the strength to defeat them hand to hand. We have developed technology. So if you follow the logic, then whatever technology enables us to do is okay (nuclear/ biological warfare, live organ theft, etc.) is okay.

Why would we be capable of stealing another mans liver and leaving him bleeding in an alley if we weren't supposed to do it? = Why would we be capable of using boats and various tools to capture an endangered species if we weren't supposed to?

Your justification for eating an endangered species is pretty fucking thin.

Is it ok to wipe a species because we evolved to do so?

You're talking about the evolution of technology so your logic justifies everything that modern man does. We have evolved to his point where we can cut down rain forests so we should cut down rain forests. Your logical is incredibly flawed.

What kind of fur do you wear?

 

[L2R]

L2R brought up the idea that since we are capable of eating them, we should eat them. But we haven't evolved the strength to defeat them hand to hand. We have developed technology. So if you follow the logic, then whatever technology enables us to do is okay (nuclear/ biological warfare, live organ theft, etc.) is okay.

I never said this. You are misrepresenting my response to your assertion that tigers and dolphins "were never meant to be our food". i asked you about what this means but you then ignored it. you have presented no support for this.

as for other factors, it has been elaborated on in this thread already. there's is nothing mysterious about them. why else would you have asked

But for the sake of argument, hypothetically, generally speaking, excluding all other factors, answer this question:

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

i think i've humoured you enough. now you are being intentionally difficult.

 

[TheDeceased]

I never said this. You are misrepresenting my response to your assertion that tigers and dolphins "were never meant to be our food". i asked you about what this means but you then ignored it. you have presented no support for this.

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?

The implication of this statement is that if we are allowed/capable of doing something then why shouldn't we do it. If you meant something else, it was unclear.

i think i've humoured you enough. now you are being intentionally difficult.

No, I'm not dude.

You never mentioned any other factors aside from extinction.

Here are the ones I can think of: Life expectancy/ Taste/ Nutritional Value/ Sentience/ Extinction

So, excluding specific cases of extinction, which is the most important factor and why?

Animals are conscious and have a higher life expectancy than edible plants. So that's two factors in their favor.

A balanced meat based diet is no more nutritious than a balanced vegan diet. So you can cancel the nutritional value factor out.

What does that leave?

Taste.

That's it, right?

Meat tastes better. Like Busty said dolphin is delicious.

So is the priority taste over life expectancy/sentience?

This is my last question, L2R.

I've enjoyed our discussion. I don't mean to annoy you. Just answer this last question rather than bailing right at the end of the discussion and I'll leave it at that.

 

[L2R]

other factors are the cost/benefit ratio in both farming and consuming, and i don't just mean monetary costs. varying species of varying kinds take x to farm, and create y in produce. both of these factor in a great many things to determine the legitimacy of alternative options.

anyway, i got sidetracked, go back to my first reply (post #35). when i agreed to your "excluding all other factors" question, i did so arbitrarily (i shouldn't post while drinking). the entire basis of you argument is complex/intelligent life if more ethically valuable than other life, but as per my original post, this has not been substantiated.

The implication of this statement is that if we are allowed/capable of doing something then why shouldn't we do it. If you meant something else, it was unclear.

again again, this quote is about YOUR FOLLOWING ASSERTION

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.

You might not have meant to annoy me, but you did nonetheless. Your self reinforcing assertions are not facts, and you ignore inconvenient questions. I enjoyed the first half of the conversation at least. happy invasion day.

 

[PureLife]

Not a child, but anything less than a human, sure.

Why? Who sets the standards for what is acceptable to eat and what is not?

Eat your own shit and run screaming through the streets praising its nutritional content.

So I can eat my own shit and run around like a maniac but I can't eat another human?

People are animals. We eat animals and sometimes animals eat us. People kill other people but they don't eat them. They do it out of anger and rage. Very rarely do people indulge in cannibalism and when they do it's almost always under times of starvation.


Obviously I'm not saying I eat people. I just saw your post and the thought "why?" popped in my head. I suppose there's really no answer to it. Besides that its taboo.

 

[TheDeceased]

Read this if you like, L2R. Nobody's forcing you.

Your self reinforcing assertions are not facts, and you ignore inconvenient questions.

I responded to a great deal of questions. You ignored some of mine also. I didn't mean to ignore anything.

again again, this quote is about YOUR FOLLOWING ASSERTION

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?

^I don't see any other way to interpret this statement. The way it is written, regardless of whether or not it is a response to anything, it implies that what modern man is capable of (eg. killing tigers with guns) must be what we are supposed to be doing. I realize it is a question and not a statement, but the implication is there nonetheless.

I never said this. You are misrepresenting my response to your assertion that tigers and dolphins "were never meant to be our food". i asked you about what this means but you then ignored it. you have presented no support for this.

Bullshit, I didn't ignore anything. I've explained the reasons as to why they are not meant to be our food in great detail.

To recap,

1) Extinction: They are at the top of the food chain and are not hunted by any predators. Hunting animals at the top of the food chain invariably leads to extinction. Dolphins, lions, tigers, elephants, etc. Which is why it is illegal to eat all of them.

2) Intelligence: You agreed this was a reason not to eat dolphins, so it should apply to tigers also. Intelligent species eat less intelligent species. It makes more sense to think about what we are physically capable of hunting without technology then with technology because as I've established with previous examples you cannot argue that what technology enables us to do is what we should be doing. Technology enables us to do terrible things. Naturally animals have the ability to take down other animals. Dolphins and tigers have risen to a level of physical perfection, to the top of the food chain. Naturally there is no species that can defeat them. Before technology they were not hunted by anything. So we invented the gun and started shooting them. Is the gun part of the natural progression of this planet? What about the nuclear bomb? What about biological weapons? Although we've developed intellectually to the point where we can build practically anything, we need to be conscientious (your word, remember?) about what it is that we do create. Our ability to destroy the entire planet doesn't mean we should do so. It is obviously wrong to kill dolphins and tigers. We are smart enough to recognize this.

3) Compassion: (Doesn't apply to tigers obviously, but it does to dolphins.) This is one of the questions you ignored earlier - If dolphins could talk to you, would that change anything? If you could hear them screaming for mercy saying please don't kill me. What level of intelligence is required for an animal before you start considering them close to human? Do they have to wear pants and drive cars? They save our lives. Name another species that we eat that saves human lives. I've never heard of a cow saving a persons life. Maybe it's happened once, but it's certainly not a common occurrence.

when i agreed to your "excluding all other factors" question, i did so arbitrarily (i shouldn't post while drinking). the entire basis of you argument is complex/intelligent life if more ethically valuable than other life, but as per my original post, this has not been substantiated.

It has been established as one of the contributing factors. You agreed to that two or three times throughout this thread.

other factors are the cost/benefit ratio in both farming and consuming, and i don't just mean monetary costs. varying species of varying kinds take x to farm, and create y in produce. both of these factor in a great many things to determine the legitimacy of alternative options.

This factor also goes against the consumption of animal products. (Arguably it is worse for the environment to eat beef then it is to drive a car, on average. And it's far more expensive to produce and buy meat, on average.)

So that's sentience/ life-expectancy/ environmental impact/ cost vs. taste.

4 to 1

 

[L2R]

sure thing t_d. whatever you think is correct. whatever man.

 

[TheDeceased]

Horses are another highly intelligent animal (which I have also eaten) that have gentle souls, and some membera who are plain cunts.

Wild horses are not gentle or particularly intelligent (certainly no where near the sophistication of dolphins and tigers) and they're not at the top of the food chain. There are a dozen or so different species that eat horse.

 

[TheDeceased]

sure thing t_d. whatever you think is correct. whatever man.

Nice chatting to you.