Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Best diet, food, or nutrition for power

PreviousPage 4 of 10Next

But there is more, humans are repelled by hair in their mouth while eating, are extremely sensitive to toxins from flesh-eating bacteria (“food poisoning”), as well as flesh-related parasites, can’t even bite the (hairy!) skin of a rabbit (or “leather” in general), don’t salivate at the thought of a mouth full of bloody, warm intestines, have no actual predator instict whatsoever, don’t want to instinctivly kill at all nor have quick enough reflexes and movements to be able to, have no fangs at all, but hands that are in contrast to fangs, optimal for picking fruits of a tree*, etc.

WE HUNT WITH TOOLS, I have seem chimps use their hands to torn appart other small primates, whats your point? do we need a clear body adaptation to everthing we as humans are capable of doing? some people do salivates and even get boners as you mentioned thinking about eating bloody guts, this morning I ate some cow tripe it was extremely delicious!

one last thing, in the rape example the new baby ( when she becomes a grown up women) may decide to have sex and babys by choice, so rape would not necesariously have to be perpetrated with every new generation of women. Only with the first one (if people choose that the continuance of the human race is more important than someone prefferences)

https://carnivoreaurelius.com/are-humans-carnivores/

Note: @Lucio, I realize I haven’t attempted to discuss or even openly disagreed with you at all, there was simply no situation calling for it and now in this topic it truly feels weird (probably because it breaks rapport) and I do it only in an attempt to point out what I came to realize is consistent and true and clears the mind, not as an attempt to discredit you whatsoever. I know you know that, but I have to state it anyway.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

In my system of ethics, as the only sentient species in this world that can use -or abuse- all other animals at will, we also have a moral obligation to use that power in ethical ways that limit the harm to said animals.”

 

It makes a lot of sense and the alternative would be barbaric and cruel, so it’s definitly morally sound.

I say intentionally it ‘is’ morally sound, instead of it ‘seems’ morally sound -even though I might come across as taking the infamous judge position, or simply arrogant-, because in contrast to what some people think if they are not themselfes at stake, moral reasoning is quite deductive, factual and exact.

 

That suffering is bad is a moral fact, not an arbitrary judgement, even though it always expresses itself in an individual, and every suffering individual is experiencing this very badness as fact, though the causes may differ vastly.

(And there are cases where one suffering avoids an even bigger one, but that doesn’t make suffering suddenly good, only less bad than the alternative.)

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

To me, that's what makes all the difference: is there any suffering? If there was no suffering, then it's fair.”

 

Completely agree, without suffering there literally is no problem.

One can’t even define the word bad without “suffering” because bad is suffering, and suffering is bad. Other words like ‘harm’, ‘problem’ or ‘emergency’ pretty much loose their meaning as well.

 

 

Although I think the biological case is the eyeopening one, and the one that even a sadist could and should cause to change his mind, because he himself obviously doesn’t want to suffer – as well as everyone else, the moral one is as demonstratebly consistent and therefore valid, though certainly not particularly admired, that’s for sure.

I will go for it anyway:

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

And, until its death, we could argue that an animal in a farm might have an easier/more comfortable life than in the wild (does not apply to McDonald style overcrowded farms, probably).”

 

The problem with this reasoning is that it implies that there are only two choices, being breeded into nature or in a CAFO(concentrated animal feeding operation, the official term in the US). There is a third one, the only one that avoids all harm completely and that is not dragging them into this position in the first place. One less bread pig in captivity doesn’t mean therefore one more bread one in nature.

 

Further and that is the very core of the matter, the animals in these – I will say it again because it is fitting – concentration camps, are genetic freaks that suffer by their very existence.

 

Even most vegans are not really aware of that, and that’s why they think saving these animals in some sanctuary were a general good thing to do.

Though the intentions are good the outcome isn’t because these animals can’t possibly be saved if their deeply genetically altered existence makes them suffer horribly.

 

Most vegans argue the slaughter/murder is bad, and it is in many if not most cases, but at least it frees them from the immense torture that comes from existing in a genetically engineered, constantly hurting freak-body.

Here is an article giving details about it for all the common freak-animals.

 

This is the part on chickens in the egg industry:

In order to reach the “profit satisfactory degree”, the egg industry genetically manipulates

chickens to lay 15 times the amount of eggs they would produce naturally.

 

Each hen lays about 300 eggs per year. This is twice as many eggs a hen produced 50 years ago.

Their wild ancestors had laid only about 20 eggs each year. Humans have engineered chickens to be nothing but egg machines.

And they have engineered eggs to be too big to be laid, consequently the hens suffer from uterus “prolapse”.

 

Huge eggs pushed through the vagina of small birds, wear out the uterus that is forcefully strained day after day to eject the huge eggs. The result is a prolapsed uterus to the state that it is dragged on the wire cage floor.

The selective breeding for intensive egg production, along with inadequate exercise, also

causes calcium deficiency and osteoporosis among hens in egg factories.

 

The quantity of calcium for yearly egg production a hen will use is 30 times greater than her entire skeleton.

Inadequate calcium results in broken bones, paralysis, and even death. About 35% of all

mortalities during the laying cycle are attributable to bone fragility.

The battery cage has created an ugly new disease of laying hens called fatty liver

hemorrhagic syndrome, characterized by an enlarged, fat, friable liver covered with blood.”

 

All these animals were genetically altered to be as efficiently exploited as possible, and the result is likely the very worst torture that you can experience on this earth, on a gigantic scale. For them life is truly hell.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

And if he had the option, the animal would still likely not choose the wilderness (it's different when the animal do would choose freedom, like for example birds in a cage).”

 

Though as far as I’m aware those animals have to be captivated all their lifes.

So I'm not sure how you would assume they would choose this, if they would run away if they could.

But even if they wouldn’t run away an abused dog likely won’t run away either, because he is dependant on food or doesn’t realize he has -somewhat- of a choice. But that doesn’t mean he likes being abused or consciously chooses it. And being in nature isn’t a particular great position to be in either.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

And, until its death, we could argue that an animal in a farm might have an easier/more comfortable life than in the wild (does not apply to McDonald style overcrowded farms, probably).”

 

Though there is another problem here, because it assumes nature is a sufficient ethical standard. Well since it’s basically consists of a torturous death colloseum of creatures ripping each other appart, one has to reject nature as a moral baseline (appeal to nature).

It might be the case that death by “careful slaughter” is less bad than death by getting eaten alive by some carnivore. But again there is a third option that avoids all of it perfectly, the only one that does – not dragging them into suffering in the first place.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

Of course, not all animals are slaughtered and/or treated in human ways that limit or cancel their suffering, so I can definitely see there is a point of contention there.”

 

And that’s true for both animal concentration camps and nature, and as far as I’m aware for most of both of them. Though the latter might be less bad in the vast amount of cases, but less bad doesn’t equate good.

Like a broken leg is less bad then a broken hip, that doesn’t make a broken leg a good thing, just a bit less bad by downward-comparison.

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:44 am

The pig goes from life to death, without pain at all.”

 

Very unfortunately that’s very often not the case, and there are countless leaked videos of slaughter houses showing that and much else, and even known statiscis of how many of them will be boiled alive while being aware of it, because they won’t be uncounscious through the bolt to the head. This is all known beforhand and calculated in.

 

Though if they would not suffer through their life at all, it would be as morally permissable as eating plants, it wouldn’t even be discriminable from eating plants, as that is how plants are being treated, and it obviously is not a problem.

Theoretically if it can be proven that braindead humans feel no suffering whatsoever, I can’t see a problem of slaughtering them, instead of actual suffering sentient entities, if flesh-eating were necessary – which it gladly isn’t for humans.

 

Quote from Anon on August 18, 2020, 3:19 pm

Further and that is the very core of the matter, the animals in these – I will say it again because it is fitting – concentration camps, are genetic freaks that suffer by their very existence.

Even most vegans are not really aware of that, and that’s why they think saving these animals in some sanctuary were a general good thing to do.

Though the intentions are good the outcome isn’t because these animals can’t possibly be saved if their deeply genetically altered existence makes them suffer horribly.

That really sucks to read man.

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on this topic, but I hope it's not as bad as that source states. And I hope that by buying higher-quality animal products, or so-called "grass-fed" / free-range, or buying straight from the smaller producers, it's a different story.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?
Quote from Stef on August 18, 2020, 11:42 am

....

Is There More “Wrong” with Killing Than Just Causing Pain?

If pain is really the important issue in abortion and in veganism, we should be able to develop hypothetical questions that support that viewpoint.

(...)

Yeah, exactly what we were talking about, and exactly what you said: the lack, or total minimization of suffering wouldn't be enough for some.

Well, I get their point of view, I respect it, but respectfully disagree.

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Anyway, guys -Anon & Stef-, I guess by now you know that by keeping your current tone, you're not going to convince each other.

If anything, you are probably making each other more entrenched against each other's position.

But since we're here to learn social and power dynamics, as well and influencing and persuasion, how about you try something completely different, and try to find some bridges?
It could be a good learning experience for both, and empower you to be more persuasive when in the future you might need to move someone closer to your position (winning them over might be difficult, but when starting from such polar opposite, small steps are all small wins).

 

Stef has reacted to this post.
Stef
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Theoretically if it can be proven that braindead humans feel no suffering whatsoever, I can’t see a problem of slaughtering them, instead of actual suffering sentient entities, if flesh-eating were necessary – which it gladly isn’t for humans.

 

If brain dead is always irreversible it would be a clear instance of euthanasia I suppose, if you are already braindead you are like a plant, that is why some call people in deep coma or paralize vegetables, you raise a big point with this animals breeded for convenience being genetic freaks, same have happen to some domestic brees of dogs like the pug with their deformed faces.

if we breed a genetically modified animal that can not feel pain or suffering?  ( I know it will be hard to prove as suffering is ultimate a subjective experience) them slaughtering this animal would be ethical in your system or not?

I am against innecesary torture, but I believe humans are omnivores closer to carnivores than to herbivores (chimps have to eat like 6 to 8 hours per day to get what they need from plants and our bigger brains seems to need acces to some nutrients that are poorly available in plants, after all plants have no brain, so they dont need crucial brain nutrients like DHA)

well i think we all agree that reducing unnecessary animal suffering is a worthy goal, as I said in the future we may be able to design an animal incapable of suffering, or find another solution.
the topic really was the best diet for humans in a non-ethical sense. Like slavery, it may be bad ethically, it is bad for the slave surely, but it obviously have advantages for the slave owner.
I see predation and flesh eating in a similar light and with big advantages for humanity, I would said we would return to be something like chimps if we just eat plants or fruits in a couple of generations (most likely we would get sicker and sicker and would degenerate and become unable to reproduce).

 

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 18, 2020, 5:15 pm
But since we're here to learn social and power dynamics, as well and influencing and persuasion, how about you try something completely different, and try to find some bridges?

 

ONLY CARNIVORES COULD HANDLE LATE TRIASSIC TROPICS

“The fluctuating and harsh climate with widespread wild fires meant that only small two-legged carnivorous dinosaurs, such as Coelophysis, could survive.”

The first animal likely was a carnivore, new research finds. Humans, along with other omnivores, belong to a rare breed.

https://www.futurity.org/omnivores-evolution-of-diet-animals-2140632/

PreviousPage 4 of 10Next
Processing...