- Status
And rightfully dismissed.
It is a red herring.
First, there are no aliens.
Second, it presupposes a justification applied to the killing of food animals that is not there.
R
redhen
Guest
Fear is an emotional response to one’s perception of danger or safety. The crucial brain area for processing this information is in the amygdala. Much research has been conducted on the amygdala of animals. Damaging the amygdala in animals (and humans) makes them fearless.
D
Drawmack
Guest
Ummm, and fear of the unknown, and fear of being alone both of which have been more than sufficiently explained in this thread.
R
redhen
Guest
The sympathetic nervous system can be activated by any strong emotional arousal, anger is one of them.You are correct though, we cannot surmise how the situation is **appraised **in an animal that exhibits fear.
The alien analogy was an attempt to get you to think about the basis of your views on animal control and slaughter for food. Is it not “might makes right”? We can control animals from birth to death because we can? If this is not your basis, please explain what it is.
But what makes your stance okay? What is the ground for this view you hold.
R
redhen
Guest
This would be anxiety, not fear. Fear is directed towards a specific object or event. Anxiety refers to a more general expectation that something bad might happen, without identifying any particular danger.
R
redhen
Guest
It was an analogous thought experiment. However, how do you know there are no alien organisms somewhere in the vast universe?
So, if the justification is not “might makes right”, then what is it?
But earlier in the thread, the fear was specificly fear of death.
How can that conclusion be reached without personification of the animal?
Since you are the one that posited the aliens, it is your job to prove their existence.
Good luck.
doesn’t matter to the red herring you put in place.
You assumed something there. Addressing it at all in any direct way gives your reasoning weight in the argument that should not be there.
4
4elise
Guest
OK… obviously I do need to take each of these posts that you are accusing me of hypocrisy — and explain – but again I say plainly I do not judge you to be morally inferior because you eat meat. (see my post #17 on this thread to see how I prefer to relate to others who do not come to the same conclusions I have - respectfully)
Per your post:
kenewickmike said: *BEEF its what’s for dinner…No thanks. This is not respect for God’s creation.
I replied: I second this kennewickmike! Not for me or my family. *
I agreed with kenewickmike – *for me and my family ”No thanks” not eating beef is a way to show respect for God’s creation *–
Now, you can hear that – therefore - since you eat beef - I am saying you are not showing respect for God’s creation – that is however not what I am saying - I am speaking only for myself and my family that I currently cook for… several of my adult children continue to eat beef I do not pass judgment upon them any more than I pass judgment on you. Not eating meat is a way that I show respect for God’s creation - you may chose another way.
You included that I had applauded for the post by SuzzySunshine – I went back through the posts since I don’t often just add ‘applause smiles’ without adding some copy – and I couldn’t find it – but if I did applaud to that post this is the section of that post that I would have been applauding:
There are many people in the world who do not have the luxury to eat meat. For those of us who do, is it a blessing or a test? Those of us who have the MOST also have the most responsibility to consider our actions, and probably need even more spiritual growth than those who live in a constant condition of suffering and lack of essentals. There is a global food crisis and meat consumption plays a vital, negative role in that. If you can afford to eat meat, giving it up and living in solidarity with your less fortunate brothers and sisters can only be a BONUS to your awareness and spiritual growth.
The issues of resources is one of the issues that really speaks to my faith as I have had the opportunity to visit many places in the world where food shortages cause tremendous hardship, illness and death as part of my work. I am always happy when someone also makes a connection to our lives here today and the lives of people living in distant places – I believe our faith calls us to do this.
So… you may be determined to hear judgement - I am not offering it, I’m not passing it, and I hope this clarifies that -** Very respectfully I ask:** Is it at all possible that you hear this because this issue has some validity for you? That you may recognize that it may be a good choice for you too?
I cannot say the issue has any real validity at all, and I view the vegetarian diet as one that is very unhealthy.
I can say that a fair amount of passion I place into the subjects has to do with the general feeling of moral superiority given off by those of the vegetarian pursuasion.
not all to be certain, but quite a few.
I can say I am much tamer then a few I have seen in this side of the argument.
one I remember well simply asked…“So what hunk of flesh did you consume at the last Mass you attended?”
D
Drawmack
Guest
No it is not a might makes right argument. And, your analogy is patently ridiculous. If you really wanted to make that argument you’d have been much better served by a Soilent Green reference than an Area 51 reference.
We have very ancient cave drawings of man on a hunt. We have teeth that are designed to rip and tear flesh as well as teeth that are designed to grind and mash grains. We have extremely center set eyes. Our digestive systems are designed to digest meat as well as plants and vegetables. (Read up on the appendix if you don’t believe me.)
Man has been a meat eater since ancient times. It is the way were are designed. Eating meat is an instinct, not eating meat is a choice. I’m sorry, but instinct wins as far as I’m concerned.
D
Drawmack
Guest
In that case, I would say the cow in the original video experienced anxiety, not fear.
4
4elise
Guest
Thank you - I’m hoping that you are putting me in the ‘not all’ category and not in the ‘quite a few’ group…
You believe that the vegetarian diet is unhealthy. I think we’ve agreed in the past that it is possible to eat healthy as an omnivore or as a vegetarian - and it is possible to be unhealthy as a omnivore and as a vegetarian - this PDF from the American Dietetic Association offers some good information: eatright.org/ada/files/Eating_Well_the_Vegetarian_Way.pdf
I too am tamer then some on ‘this side’ of the discussion… but let’s not go down the road of making any comparisons of cannibalism to transubstantiation. Do you think that some on ‘your side’ have a sense of moral superiority over those of us who are of the ‘vegetarian pursuasion’ then?
It is very difficult to have a real discussion when we are judging each other.
D
Drawmack
Guest
You keep saying that, but you’re actions don’t support it.
If not eating beef shows respect, then what does eating beef show?
When you state in a public forum that not eating meat shows respect for God’s creation, what are you saying about eating meat? When you make any affirmative statement you are infering its antithetical negative. The affirmative cannot be true if the negative is false. I cannot say freedom is good and lack of freedom is also good. That is hypocrisy!
I stand corrected that was Marfran who did that – I apologize to you.
But let’s look at the section you said you would have been applauding, I’ve bolded the pertinent passage.
Again I tell you that you cannot make an affirmative statement without implying the negative of that same statement, if you do this then you are being a hypocrite. So, if not eating meat is a bonus to your awareness and spiritual growth then eating meat would result in not getting this “bonus” and thus would result in less spiritual awareness and growth and thus would be saying that those who eat meat are spiritually deficient when compared with those that do.
Yeah, I’m all for sending a u-haul to everyone who lives in a desert and offering them relocation to land capable of supporting human life.
No, the issue really has no validity for me. Did you even read this freaking thread. I have already said, IN THIS THREAD, that when I attempted to go vegetarian I suffered health problems. Are you trying to tell me that I should be like those woman’s cats?
My problem is that you’re speaking out both sides of your mouth. You’re saying, not eating meat is better for spiritual growth. Then you’re saying that you’re not claiming those who eat meat are spiritually deficient. You are saying that not eating meat is respectful and then saying that your not saying eating meat is disrespectful. You are being a hypocrite.
4
4elise
Guest
Ok, I’m going to try this one more time.
I am speaking for me.
I am not speaking for you or for anyone else.
I say that FOR ME it is a better choice for my spiritual growth,
For me it is a way I show respect for God’s creation.
For me I have found it connecting with my faith.
For you - obviously it isn’t a good choice - your health must come first.
As for reading this thread which you seem to be accusing me of not doing - in the first post I made on this thread (#2) I wrote:
P.S. - to preempt the usual replies and arguments I’ve seen on CAF:
(1) This does not mean that people who care about this cow care more about animals than people.
(2) This does not mean that people who care about this cow don’t also feel passionate about pro-life issues
(3) Yes Jesus ate fish & lamb - the fish and lamb were not raised in factory farms - not comparable to what is available for most people today.
(4) If you raise your own cows (or hunt for food) and they don’t live like this -** OR - you have a medical issue that you have been advised by a doctor that you must eat meat OBVIOUSLY this discussion - since your health needs to come first **- isn’t about your access to meat.
I really don’t know how else to show you respect and still disagree with you
- this choice to be vegan resonates with MY faith - that is all I can speak to.It matters to me, so I love to discuss the choice with others who share our Catholic faith - you just seem to be reacting so strongly I thought perhaps it was because you felt some connection - even if it is something you can’t do because of health reasons.
D
Drawmack
Guest
And, once the statements are personalized in this way – I have no problem with them. It is when they are generalized to drop the personal pronoun that I take issue with them.Ok, I’m going to try this one more time.
I am speaking for me.
I am not speaking for you or for anyone else.
I say that FOR ME it is a better choice for my spiritual growth,
For me it is a way I show respect for God’s creation.
For me I have found it connecting with my faith.
For you - obviously it isn’t a good choice - your health must come first.
As for reading this thread which you seem to be accusing me of not doing - in the first post I made on this thread (#2) I wrote:
P.S. - to preempt the usual replies and arguments I’ve seen on CAF:
(1) This does not mean that people who care about this cow care more about animals than people.
(2) This does not mean that people who care about this cow don’t also feel passionate about pro-life issues
(3) Yes Jesus ate fish & lamb - the fish and lamb were not raised in factory farms - not comparable to what is available for most people today.
(4) If you raise your own cows (or hunt for food) and they don’t live like this -** OR - you have a medical issue that you have been advised by a doctor that you must eat meat OBVIOUSLY this discussion - since your health needs to come first **- isn’t about your access to meat.
I really don’t know how else to show you respect and still disagree with you
It matters to me, so I love to discuss the choice with others who share our Catholic faith - you just seem to be reacting so strongly I thought perhaps it was because you felt some connection - even if it is something you can’t do because of health reasons.
R
redhen
Guest
No, as Charlton Heston proclaimed; Soylent Green is people! I was referencing how we treat other species not our own. Hence the alien analogy. If these alien invaders were carnivores, then according to your appeal to nature, they would have the ethical right to raise and slaughter humans for food, since it is natural for them to eat meat. This is not a red herring, it is pertinent to this discussion.
There are men throughout history who have slaughtered the infants of the mothers they just raped. We see this behaviour in nature all the time, think of a pride of lions. It’s instinct. But they are lions, we are supposedly homo sapiens, the thinking man. If we act our on instincts at all times, can we justify the behaviour as natural and therefore morally acceptable?
D
Drawmack
Guest
It’s not pertinent because it takes my argument beyond it’s natural boundaries. I was speaking about known, earthly species. You said what about non-earthly species, that takes us beyond my arguments natural boundaries. Why my argument rests on is that other animals are not cognizant in the way that humans are. Take Buffalo for example.
One a Buffalo farm they drive a front end loader up behind a Buffalo, park it, get out with a gun, walk around and shoot the Buffalo in the head so that it falls into the bucket. How many times could a person watch that before they ran away from the front end loader? This is what I’m saying, animals are not cognizant on the level that humans are. Therefore it is okay to give them a nice pampered life for a couple years and then kill them for food in a humane way. When you attempt to place this argument with people being the ones raised for food that takes it beyond its natural boundaries because humans are cognizant on the level that humans are cognizant.
Again taking my argument beyond it’s natural parameters. You keep attempting to use the same logical fallacy. I am talking about the instinct for what we eat. It’s also human instinct to fight amongst ourselves to determine who should lead the pack, we don’t do that today. Oh wait, yes we do look at Iraq. But anyway, stop trying to win with logical fallacy. Either debate my arguments on their merit and within their natural boundaries or go find a fifth grader to talk to.
M
Marfran
Guest
This statement is NOT TRUE. Humans were not designed to eat meat–don’t have the teeth, claws, talons, stomach enzymes (meat needs to be cooked to kill viruses and bacteria), correct intestines for it, etc. I think we’ve covered this in previous posts. Eating meat an instinct??? Not for humans–not even close to an instinct–for carnivorous animals, yes. Try looking up the HISTORY of human meat eating. Meat eating came about as a strategy for humans to survive in harsh climates. And before man could be successful at it, he had to invent some tools to make it easier to hunt and kill his prey–(something he can’t do with his bare, tool-less hands) and learn to utilize fire.
If man is such an instinctive well-equipped meateater–then he should have no trouble if he gets lost in the woods without tools, without specially manufactured, industrialized gadgets as aids–no trouble catching and eating prey. And don’t reply that man has a superior brain to aid him in making the tools that he needs to do his killing–to make up for the tools that his body doesn’t posses–that’s not instinct. It took generations and generations for civilization to get to the point where it is now.
If you were lost in the woods, without the benefit of civilization’s advanced tools, just how long would you last on that instinct. How long would it take you to extract the materials and make the machinery to build yourself a gun??? You might die of starvation before you accomplish that task. Better resort to your natural diet, your instinctual diet, while you are walking in circles waiting to be rescued.
Eating meat is a CHOICE, it is a path that our civilization purposefully took. Meat eating is not necessary for heath, and can be shown to adversely affect health. It is linked to diseases of affluence–heart disease, cancer, obesity, etc. There’s no INSTINCT there–and no more HARSH climate to battle–ALL that’s left is PREFERENCE–a preference of taste.
So we no longer NEED to kill animals to survive the harsh climate–WE CHOOSE to eat them because we have grown accustomed to the taste–because we like the taste. IS THAT REASON ENOUGH to keep breeding, killing, and eating them??? Just because they taste good? If we don’t NEED to eat them, are we being good stewards of God’s creation by continuing to do so? Or are we just being selfish?
- Status