Meat

[Catrixa]

Do you eat meat? No.
If no, why? Basic empathy?

I wouldn't call it 'basic empathy'. Were it 'basic' I think more people would have it and therefore be vegetarians.
If anything it would be 'generalised empathy'.

I would call it basic empathy, which is overridden by social structures. Would you consider empathising with black people to be "basic empathy"? If so, how was slavery in America allowed to happen? Why did black people have to fight so hard for their civil rights? Shouldn't more people have acknowledged their rights and there humanity, if it is 'basic'?

I know you've spent a lot of time arguing because of this post, and I'm very sorry for wanting to throw something else at you, but I wouldn't have typed this if I didn't feel it was important to mention.

Putting all ideas of morality to the side for a moment, these things happened for roughly the same reason: they are both because of a human instinct. Humans ate meat, because meat was food, and you pretty much went for what was the most efficient way to get the food you needed. If meat was closer than a grain with some vitamin you needed, you went for the meat. Fearing others who are different has always been a base human reaction. It kept our tribes alive, and people still use it today to enslave and murder others. Are both of these things strictly necessary anymore? Probably not, but we seem to know more about the genetic makeup of our species (one human is not really significantly different from another) than we do about how to eat in ways that won't wind up being fatal (see: heart disease).

Now, to add morals back in: calling anything "basic," "default," "the base line for being human," is absurd. To say "our instincts are the baseline!" is to say "we should not overcome our instincts and treat others outside of our social groups as equals!" To say "society is the baseline!" is to say "inequalities that exist today should stay, because others say so!" Both of these are pointless, but to go so far as to say "my morals are the baseline, because I said so!" is to say "no one else can be right, so long as it disagrees with me!" Humans have debated what is the proper way to view the world and live our lives for eons. It has been the cause of wars and the basis of societies. If there is a "right" answer, I can guarantee no one has found it yet.

OT:
Do you eat meat?
Yup.
If yes, why?
It's easy, filling, decent on my diet, and provides variety to my day.
Would you eat Synthetic Meat?
Fat content-controlled? Sign me the hell up! I'd love some protein I can add to any meal, without having to worry as much about my diet.
Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish)
Salmon. Raw salmon, cooked salmon, salmon with rice/mashed potatoes/grilled asparagus, if it was a salmon, I want to eat it.
If you don't eat meat, what do you prefer?
When I'm not eating meat, I like veggie burgers (NOT BOCA BURGER. The kind that have a billion vegetables in them. Boca burger patties are like eating flavored rubber floor mats), boca crumbles covered in seasoning ('bout the only kind of boca that isn't blarg), beans, more beans, cheese with beans, beans with beans, and sometimes vegetables with beans. When I go to eat some refried beans, I do so by the can...

Really though, stuff I don't eat: Cantaloupe, honeydew melon, unpickled cucumber in large quantities, and zucchini I can taste. Pretty sure I wouldn't eat human for health reasons, but other than that, I'll try it at least once.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Do you eat meat?
Yes

If yes, why?
I've been eating meat all my life, I love the taste of certain meats, but all meats in generally and I really can't see myself ever stopping.

If no, why?
Does Not Apply

Would you eat Synthetic Meat?
If there are no health risks, it tastes as good as the real deal, can be cooked like the real deal, and is either the same price or cheaper than the real deal, than yes, I would at least give it a try.

Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish)
Well, I'm just very comfortable with the meats that I've eaten my entire life and cooked in both my cultural way and in other cultural manners. Aside from those meats, I've also tried more exotic meats, such as unagi (eel) and scallops.

If you don't eat meat, what do you prefer?
Soups, usually with hearty veggies (i.e. carrots, potatoes, etc.), or seafood, if not considered as meat.

 

[Arakasi]

Well most of the time it is really not practical to torture or harm others, especially since you do have empathy which, even were it pleasurable to do so, would make it proportionally displeasurable. With animals it's an entirely different case. Also, empathy for empathy's sake I think will lead to very strange outcomes, evolutionarily speaking. Hell, it already has. Birds limp around as if they have broken legs to manipulate free food out of us foolish organisms who can't tell the difference. The more they pretend to be in pain the more we'll want to help, and what's the best way for evolution to make us think an animal is in pain? Actually cause them pain in our presence. This is all of course, just wild speculation, but I think the outcomes of sympathy will end up far worse than any consequence of not having it now.

You mean these pigeons who always get the most breadcrumbs from young kids with an overdeveloped sense of justice? http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5258/5520928047_aa295d3c30_z.jpg

They aren't pretending, they just have a fungal infection. But yes, if they are the ones who survive to reproduce the most, then that will negatively affect their species somewhat. Nonetheless I think you're blowing the consequences for both us and them out of proportion. And betraying yourself a bit by worrying about a future that does not practically concern you.

But if hurting another person was practical and pleasurable, you would do it? Then I do not exactly have a reason (or desire) to speak with you.

What I'm trying to say here is that rewarding only those who show pain is a poor idea, it is better to reward action we consider good than action we consider pitiful.

And no, I would not harm another human were it practical and pleasurable. Partially because it goes against the morality I developed, but primarily because of the social contract. Though I cannot say how a version of me without any empathy would act, maybe a version of me without morality would harm a human, I can only say from the point of view of me, me being where I can not understand getting pleasure from harming someone. I might also add an interesting dilemma, you can go to eternal paradise, but you have to flick someone in the arm to go there, but you can't ask permission or forewarn the person. Do you do it?
Oh, and I might also add that there's no reason to be so hostile.

Many, many, many more steps. But complexity has never been a good argument for their being something more.

How is that not a good argument? Do you think shooting an AI opponent in the Goldeneye game is the same as snuffing out a human life? Complexity is everything. I think, therefore I am.

No, because of the social contract. Complexity does not make something intrinsically more valuable (perhaps to own, but not from some sort of objective moral standpoint). A robot could also say it processes therefore it is, all that argument is a matter of perspective, I perceive therefore there must be something doing the perceiving. Nothing to do with complexity beyond simple perception.

They may seem in the moment evolutionary oversights, but they are just part of the mechanism to get along in society. Though there may be a few that haven't caught up with modern society, I'm not sure how you'd identify them other than them being simply maladaptive.[/quote

The joy of beauty and the pursuit of meaning is just a mechanism? Again, not wrong, but incredibly pessimistic, reductionist and boring.

I beg to differ. One can still pursue pleasures (beauty, sport, whatever) knowing they are meaningless outside of just pleasure, or knowing that they are simply a mechanism, there's no need to delude oneself.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Now, to add morals back in: calling anything "basic," "default," "the base line for being human," is absurd. To say "our instincts are the baseline!" is to say "we should not overcome our instincts and treat others outside of our social groups as equals!" To say "society is the baseline!" is to say "inequalities that exist today should stay, because others say so!" Both of these are pointless, but to go so far as to say "my morals are the baseline, because I said so!" is to say "no one else can be right, so long as it disagrees with me!" Humans have debated what is the proper way to view the world and live our lives for eons. It has been the cause of wars and the basis of societies. If there is a "right" answer, I can guarantee no one has found it yet.

No, I stand by what I said. I don't know why so many people objected to my calling it basic empathy. It is basic in the sense that it is simple and easy. It doesn't require any special training to read an animals body language. When an animal is frightened, it tenses up. When an animal is in pain, it screams just like a human.

We know that animals feel pain just as well as a human because of science, and we know they feel fear and they can suffer just as well as a human, thanks to science. On top of this we can empathise with them thanks to, yes, the basic framework for empathy that everyone is born with, unless they have a medical condition that prevents them from doing so properly.

This is merely a fact. For me the fact that I can empathise with animals is enough to prevent me from eating them, like I said in my initial post. For others, it isn't. That does not mean I am claiming my morals are baseline, whatever that means. It genuinely blows my mind sometimes how defensive meat eaters get. No one in this thread has read and responded to what I said within any reasonable margin of error. I'm the first to acknowledge when I've worded something badly, but people here are latching onto certain words here or there and inventing their own wild meanings around them. I'm fucking tired of it, so I'm not going to respond anymore.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

I do eat meat. Mainly because it tastes good and I don't suffer the idea that another creature shouldn't have to die for me to eat.

Having said that, I do try to keep my factory farm purchases to an absolute minimum.

If by Synthetic Meat you mean cloned meat then yeah, I got no problem with it. If you mean textured soy protien...I'll eat it but I'd rather not. I can taste the difference and it's rarely good.

 

[VodkaKnight]

I eat meat, because it tastes good. Also nutrition and stuff.
I would eat synthetic meat. It'd help stop factory farming, and we could use the saved space for farming and stuff.
I think Roast Duck with lentils is brilliant.

 

[ViridianV6]

Do you eat meat?

Yes, I eat chicken, beef or pork at least once a day.

If yes, why?

I like the taste of it, and feel as though the lack of it makes a dish boring.

Would you eat Synthetic Meat?

Provided it tasted similar enough to real meat I would have no objections to eating it, though I've never had an opportunity to try it.

Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish)

My favourite meat would most likely be pig because of all the cured meats that are derived from it, though my favourite dish would be a rare eye fillet steak with mashed potatoes and salad.

If you don't eat meat, what do you prefer?

Anything that has a similar consistency to meat, particularly vegetable curry and vegie burgers. Soup with bread is also a good alternative, given the heartiness of dishes such as minestrone and pumpkin soup.

 

[Nosirrah]

Do you eat meat? Yep, it's delicious.
If yes, why? Because reasons.
Would you eat Synthetic Meat? yeah, don't understand the problem with this, it's meat but without anything dying in the process.
Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish) Call me weird, but raw meat looks much more appetising. But I quite like duck.

 

[Olas]

Do you eat meat?

No, or very rarely.

If yes, why?

Because it's in nearly everything and hard to avoid.

If no, why?

Because I generally don't like the taste or texture

Would you eat Synthetic Meat?

If it tasted good. Not if it tasted like real meat.

Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish)

I can't stand any type of fish or seafood. I find beef merely tolerable. I only eat chicken if it's been highly processed ie: doesn't have the actual chicken texture.

If you don't eat meat, what do you prefer?[/b]

Pretty much everything save for maybe some kinds of vegetables raw.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I hunt and I love preparing and eating meat. I still would not want to consider myself a monster, as I do love and respect animals and oftentimes find myself preferring to be in their presence than in that of my fellow humans.

I'm still working on making excellent sausages instead of just decent ones. Too bad grandpa died so randomly and took his time tested recipes with him.

I also like vegetables but I have developed an aversion, nay, an allergy to the assorted misanthropic bs 'militant vegans' and other uebermensch antisocial elements that feel this strong urge to tell me what to do and how to do it randomly spout even when not specifically asked about their opinion.

It's almost as if getting rid of God, the church and our own culture has somehow managed to make them quite intolerant to who and what they are... or are supposed to be.

I don't really think anything much can be gained from discussing this. If you like eat, do eat meat. It's healthy and delicious.

The only thing I feel I have to disagree with is your stance on kangaroo meat. Not sure what happened there, but when you prepare it properly, it's very much like horse. Lean, dark red, in need of nothing but a little oil, a little heat, salt and pepper and maybe some thyme or rosemary if you're feeling fancy.

 

[sumanoskae]

Being upper middle class, North American (USA), and not much of a humanitarian, eating meat is the least of my sins. Living without causing suffering, directly or via cause and effect, is close to impossible.

Pain and suffering are natural parts of life, and to eliminate them would be to change the very nature of existence.

The very fact that some people starve to death whilst I have more food available to me than I could realistically eat is an injustice. I resolved a long time ago that trying to rid the world of injustice was akin to trying to break down a steel wall with my skull; the only thing accomplish in the long run would be more struggling.

The world will continue to do what it always has regardless of what I do, so I will find whatever beauty I can in it, and hold onto it.

 

[Ritualist]

I'll tackle this simply:

Do you eat meat? Yarp. I loves it.
If yes, why? Cause it's goooooooood.
If no, why? Not applicable. Please move on.
Would you eat Synthetic Meat? Yes. Believe it or not tofu can be made good. And you don't NEED synthetic meats. Substituting a big fat grilled mushroom for your burger is actually pretty damn tasty.
Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish) Nope. Blood blood blood makes the green grass grow.
If you don't eat meat, what do you prefer?I do eat meat but I figured I'd answer as there are alternatives. They aren't as good or varied as simply eating meat, but mushrooms can make a great meat substitute from time to time. Peanuts will get you your protein, etc, etc. There are alternatives.


I will address one hot topic though. NEVER bring up morality when it comes to eating, unless it's cannibalism. Eating animals is something we did for thousands of years as a survival tactic. Does that mean that it's wrong to do it now that we aren't hunter/gatherers? No. Is it immoral to eat meat? No. Because that would imply that evolution, and basic survival are both inherently evil. And if man is inherently evil then that is a necessity, as the inherent evil is the only thing keeping us progressing as a society. There are no moral truths except 1: Only what is good for the growth of humans as a whole, so long as it does not ruin the environment, is the only true good. That is the only morality that matters.
Are far too many animals raised as food in horrifying conditions? YUP. But that doesn't make eating them bad. It makes the producers bad. I will admit it openly, we mass produce too much meat, and it leads to terrible conditions and sub par yields as they over price under quality products.

Eating meat isn't bad. It's how it lives and gets to market that is bad. Having said that, tying a newborn cow to a stake and force feeding it until it's fat enough to eat is fucked up. It takes away personal humanity from a man who would deny even the simplest of lives to something he is going to eat. It's kind of like robots replacing assembly line workers.
It's more efficient, and can mass produce the product faster, but overproduction sacrifices a need. In this way, veal is efficient at creating the tenderness and flavor, and it can be mass produced sacrificing maturity of a product, and even the simplest dignity to the animal. And animals DO have dignity. Any pet owner can tell you that.
If you had to grow up just to be a cog in a machine wouldn't you like the dignity of being acknowledged as a cog?

 

[Arakasi]

lol I was warned for suggesting that someone swallows a penis in a thread about eating meat. I was only discussing the topic!

Yeah, it made it a pain in the ass to quote you again.

l

What I'm trying to say here is that rewarding only those who show pain is a poor idea, it is better to reward action we consider good than action we consider pitiful.

And no, I would not harm another human were it practical and pleasurable. Partially because it goes against the morality I developed, but primarily because of the social contract. Though I cannot say how a version of me without any empathy would act, maybe a version of me without morality would harm a human, I can only say from the point of view of me, me being where I can not understand getting pleasure from harming someone. I might also add an interesting dilemma, you can go to eternal paradise, but you have to flick someone in the arm to go there, but you can't ask permission or forewarn the person. Do you do it?
Oh, and I might also add that there's no reason to be so hostile.

That is not an interesting dilemma. Only a fool would want to live forever. No matter how great paradise may be, it will bore you to insanity after the first billion years, and then you still have eternity left to wait out.

A neurochemical paradise in which your brain is stimulated and kept in a constant state of pleasure would never get old. By necessity, because it's a hypothetical. In hypotheticals you must take the premises as given, and see what you'd do.

l
And a flick on the arm? That doesn't even count as hurting someone. Maybe if it was the most sensitive and kind soul in the world it'd be a factor.

I'm talking about a hard flick, but if you want I could replace that with a pinch. What I'm asking, is what counts and what doesn't? Any line would seem arbitrary unless it's none or all.

l

No, because of the social contract. Complexity does not make something intrinsically more valuable (perhaps to own, but not from some sort of objective moral standpoint). A robot could also say it processes therefore it is, all that argument is a matter of perspective, I perceive therefore there must be something doing the perceiving. Nothing to do with complexity beyond simple perception.

There's that word 'objective' again... yes, impartially speaking the intrinsic value does not go up with complexity. Subjectively however, a shark is more valuable than a mosquito. A random amoeba less useful than a milk cow. An tablet computer is worth more than a pencil and paper. Objectively speaking you can disagree. But you'd look pretty silly taking the pencil and paper when you can sell the tablet to buy many pencils and papers.

Complexity isn't exactly the cause of the value in those situations. In every situation you described X was valuable because X was more useful. Complexity does not impart value.

l
And no, a robot cannot say that it processes and therefore it is, unless you program it to.

We were programmed by evolution. So does not the same apply?

l

I beg to differ. One can still pursue pleasures (beauty, sport, whatever) knowing they are meaningless outside of just pleasure, or knowing that they are simply a mechanism, there's no need to delude oneself.

They are delusions to you only because you have decided that they are delusions. The beauty of sentience is that we can forge meaning where there is only meaninglessness.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that the only meaning that makes any sense (aside from various in-built biases) is the drive for pleasure.

 

[Arakasi]

A neurochemical paradise in which your brain is stimulated and kept in a constant state of pleasure would never get old. By necessity, because it's a hypothetical. In hypotheticals you must take the premises as given, and see what you'd do.

Pleasure is something I look forward to because it is different from not-pleasure. You need cold to experience warmth. I choose a nice, comfortable brain-death still.

I am kind of sick of this argument, because it's not apt. There are pleasures you can get sick of, like too much food or too much sex for example, but you never get sick of the neurochemical signals in the reward center of the brain. It'd be maladaptive (in our current environment) if you could.

I'm talking about a hard flick, but if you want I could replace that with a pinch. What I'm asking, is what counts and what doesn't? Any line would seem arbitrary unless it's none or all.

Hardly arbitrary. Only computers are limited to making hard, binary distinctions like black/white, pain/not-pain, on/off. We are more complex.

We are more complex in that we do gradations, like a dimmer switch. Note that you can get gradations from on/off. Our neurons work by building an electric charge, before turning on/off. It's possible (I think, though I am not too knowledgeable in neurophysiology) for neurons to have to take charges from multiple locations before firing, and things of that nature. The same could be said for computers programmed to do such.

Complexity isn't exactly the cause of the value in those situations. In every situation you described X was valuable because X was more useful. Complexity does not impart value.

How is a shark useful compared to a mosquito exactly? One is simply more complex and that makes it more valuable to me. Hold on, let me channel my inner nihilist, you're going to say that the animal is good for soup aren't you?

Hey man, don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

We were programmed by evolution. So does not the same apply?

Natural selection isn't a conscious process, we are.

...So? How does that relate to this facet of the argument?

Yes, and what I'm saying is that the only meaning that makes any sense (aside from various in-built biases) is the drive for pleasure.

How boring!

As previously mentioned, pleasure activations in the brain necessarily can't be boring. Sure we currently have to use many means to get to it (food, sex, thrills, entertainment, whatever) but having to do more things to get the same thing is rather wasteful. If you could just inject a non-harmful drug and have it for the rest of your life, why not?

 

[Ritualist]

r u serious rite now? Eating human meat is a taboo or a religious taboo. Morality only comes into it if you consider the conditions in which the human meat was acquired. And if you do that, then you must also take morality into account with eating animal meat.

So you're saying it's okay to eat human meat as long as the person wants to be eaten or it is a necessity? Okay? Not gonna argue that. Extenuating circumstances always exist.

No, you're wrong. I don't even have to provide any evidence to refute your claim because those moral truths are personal to you and do not apply to me.

"Nuh-uh, you're wrong and I don't have to support my claim."
Cute, really cute. If you want to debate a claim, please try actually debating it.

It does, because you are purchasing that meat and personally creating a demand for more. Which, as you said, cannot be supported humanely.

That might be true. MIGHT. You do have to take into account that I can't actively control how the meat comes to be. Are there humane farms? Yup. Are there inhumane ones? You bet'cha. But until I see stickers on my meat telling me which ones are which, it's kind of hard for me to truly know who's humane and who's not.
Once again, if you want to debate a point, try debating the point instead of blindly pointing fingers looking for a scapegoat.

I need clothes. I can't afford nice ones. Do the cheap ass affordable clothes I wear come from child labor? Maybe. But it's that or go naked (and I ain't got a problem with that. But the cops do).

 

[Arakasi]

I am kind of sick of this argument, because it's not apt. There are pleasures you can get sick of, like too much food or too much sex for example, but you never get sick of the neurochemical signals in the reward center of the brain. It'd be maladaptive (in our current environment) if you could.

Well, do excuse me for responding to your hypothetical with an answer that you do not consider valid.

You're excused, it's a common mistake.

You want to spend billions of years wallowing about in your own uselessness as you've rendered things like love, friendship and even eating and sleeping meaningless.

They are already meaningless beyond pleasure. It would be better to surpass them, but since that is not currently possible I'll settle.

The question is whether I would, and the answer is no. It's that simple.

I'd like to hear a valid reason. If you don't have one, okay. I'd just like to hear one. I go where the philosophy leads me.

And you also want to gamble that the reward center of your brain, along with the rest of it, is perfectly adapted to life eternal. Which is naive at best.

That is an interesting point, though I didn't mention anything about eternal life (did I?). What if your reward center deteriorated before the rest of the brain (for some reason)? Well then that would be the time to die.

I'm talking about a hard flick, but if you want I could replace that with a pinch. What I'm asking, is what counts and what doesn't? Any line would seem arbitrary unless it's none or all.

We are more complex in that we do gradations, like a dimmer switch. Note that you can get gradations from on/off.

You're either contradicting yourself or answering your own question.

No, both of those quotes were in reference to two different things. One was about the similarity between us and computers in that we both use gradations, and the other was in reference to the morality of harming others.

The line is not absolute because we 'sentient computers' are able to make as many distinctions between gradations as we feel we need to. So of course a pinch does not count, because it's several gradations below what most people would consider life-changing. Where was this even going?

Fair enough, so it's moral to flick someone (well, not moral, but not greatly immoral) because we can make distinctions between what is acceptable and what isn't. Okay, how does this apply to animals? I'd argue that it doesn't.

Hey man, don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

On the contrary, I am quite sure that the dish, as well as you personally, disgust and bore me.

You really do love to border on the ad-hominem don't you? If you want people to take any argument you make seriously I recommend you do not partake in such.

 

[Ritualist]

Then if you take circumstances into account, you must also realize that eating animal meat is neither something the animal desires nor a necessity anymore. Given our current level of evolutionary and technological advancement. Therefore morals factor in where they did not previously do so, and thus we are perfectly valid in calling the act of eating meat today evil to a good degree.

Sorry, dominant species bro. Science says the piggy don't know what's coming and wouldn't know the difference. Evolution says you're wrong. If eating meat is evil, eating a salad is just as evil since plants give us oxygen. I only agreed to EXTENUATING circumstances. A pig can't talk. A cow doesn't know the difference between being fed and being driven to market. Eating them is morally no different than breathing. Unless you believe trees don't want us inhaling their poop.

My point was that your claim to moral truth is not and cannot be up for debate because any dissent would be considered wrong (as in contrary to the truth) by definition. I can however, simply make a claim to the contrary of what you said.

Contrary would be giving your "point" too much credit there. If you'd said what you said just now BEFORE, you might have a point. But you don't try to dunk on Shaq, and you don't try to act like a 12 year old's argument is a valid point.

The economic fact that I stated might be true? Gee.

You cannot minimize your impact on the demand for cheap clothes because they are vital to your survival, but the same cannot be said for meat. And here in Europe at least, we do have stickers that indicate how much living space the animal had and how many drugs and antibiotics it was pumped full of on a daily basis. Still not entirely reliable, but purchasing them communicates a demand.

Actually I can.
Remember them vitamin supplements I mentioned earlier? I can't buy them. I have a 189 USD food budget per month. And you can't buy pills with food stamps. Remember them peanuts I mentioned? Guess what? I'm allergic bro.
You NEED protein to survive. Me, and countless other people in this country are on governmental aid just to eat. And more and more children are born every year with peanut allergies. And your argument is that I am bad for buying non-cruelty free chicken? Well, I can buy 5 pounds of non-cruelty free chicken for 25 bucks. Or I can get 1 pound of cruelty free chicken for 10. Do the math. Inhuame meat means I get to survive. Humane meat currently means I die of a protein deficiency. Cruelty free is NOT an affordable option if I would like to continue to live.

My need for affordable clothes DIRECTLY coincides with my need to eat meat. You missed the keyword. AFFORDABLE. Means I live on a budget. Means countless people in the world live on a budget. So until organic foods and cruelty-free meat products start having competitive prices, no, I can't be blamed for simply needing to survive. Nice try though.