What is a valid reason not to hunt whales for meat?

[PaulTB]

I'd like to try something a little different. This is NOT about whether you think hunting whales for food is justified or not. This is about which reason for not hunting whales you think is most important and most accurate. e.g. Even if you think whale hunting should occur pick the reason which comes closest to convincing you.

Because whale hunting is cruel and causes excessive suffering
While the following link isn't exactly from a neutral site, most developed countries have regulations in place (and enforced to a greater or lesser extent) to reduce suffering in animals slaughtered for food.
http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/E0C5B84BE1D0B57880256D1F00282A09
Of course whales aren't the only exception. Kosher meat is another hot topic due to this concern.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm
Because whale meat is not healthy to eat
Dangerously high levels of mercury contamination have been very widely found in whale meat.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/acs-mip051903.php
Because whales are cute / beautiful
http://www.sapphirecoast.com.au/whales/default.htm
Because whales are endangered
The population levels of whale species, and what constitutes as 'safe' level are fiercely disputed.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
Note that whales aren't unique in this area, other more endangered species are also eaten - see bush meat.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9812/30/africa.bushmeat/
One big difference is that the majority of whaling is done by developed countries.
Because whales are intelligent
Intelligence is a tricky one to measure. I, for one, would have little difficulty in saying "earthworm = unintelligent, dolphin = intelligent" but is a blue whale more intelligent than a pig? Should we not be eating pigs because they are intelligent?
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-be-an.htm
Because of something else (please state)

[Sinspawne]

Many species of whale are very endangered.
and i'm sure that if 1 species goes extinct, it would make a hole in the eco system. thus dragging a whole bunch of others with it

[bossel]

Voted for "endangered". But "cruelty" & rather high "intelligence" would count for me as well.

[TwistedMac]

i'm gonna go with endangered... since it's the only one i'd give a **** about..

(i actually made those *'s myself to start off with.. no profanity here, no-sir-ee)

[PaulTB]

i'm gonna go with endangered... since it's the only one i'd give a **** about..
Well then. See if the Intergalactic Whale Federation let YOU off the planet any time soon!

[TwistedMac]

... you didn't put "to get friendly with the IWF so they'll let you off the planet" up there!

[Sinspawne]

*Warning! very off topic* *and it's just something i remembered*

While i was in the coastguard, I saw a video of some "anti whale hunting" group trying to stop a whale hunt ship by any means.
(it was filmed seperatily onboard both coastguard ship and the anti hunt ship, then edited together)

The coast guard fired a warning shot.

Anti whale hunt ship doesent stop.

Coastguard deploys a water-jet boat, and it drops sound charges in the
water as a further warning.

Anti whale-hunt ship yells over the radio (open channel) that the norwegian coastguard is trying to blow up their ship with explocives, and that they are taking in water!

Coastguard tries to stop them once more by dragging a rope in front of them, to entangle the propellor.

(here it gets idiotic) they avoid the rope, going full speed and rams straight into the side of the coastguards ship, smashing their own bough!
while the coastguard ship is only in need of a fresh coat of paint :D

Anti whale-hunt ship yells over the radio "mayday mayday" we are going under etc. then limps away from the scene. (coastguard doesent follow them)

(they called mayday and said they were sinking. but appeared in a port hundred of miles away still afloat) :D


seriously, who on earth can be more dumb than them?!

they even documented every lie, and violation they did on film. it's like witnessing agains yourself in court...

[Xkavar]

If Star Trek IV has taught us anything, it's that you never know what you'll desperately need on this planet. Whales may have some incredible significance to, for example, maintaining the ratio of ocean predators to prey, and if they're hunted indiscriminately something in that system may tip over.

[Golgo_13]

If whales are endangered, the mass hunting by the New England whalers in the 19th century might have contributed to it.

[Xkavar]

Don't forget the 19th century fishing vessels off the coast of Alaska, who were allowed to shoot any whale that interfered with their daily catch.

[digicross]

Several reasons that would made me on not to hunt whales for meat:

- God said so to me on not to eat whale meat. Of course for now, it's open season on whales.

- I have a condition that prohibit me to eat whale meat. Of course currently, it's open season on whales.

- I feel sympathetic toward the whales, though then again if I felt sympathetic to consumeable animals, I probably can't eat any meat from animals. Of course for now, it's open season on whales.

- The whale is a close friend of mine. Of course for now, it's open season on whales.

- I know for sure that the group of whales in front of me is THE last group of whales, I mean that if I'm not starving, I should let them go so that they can breed and their descendants could the potential of my future meal. Of course for now, it's open season on whales.

- I currently I don't want to eat whale meats. Well... Go on whales, be free... for now.

My primary reason is the last. Till I developed some sort of taste for whale meat, I have no interest on hunting those things.


Anyway. I heard that shark fins is quite delicious, maybe that would be the next poll should be "what is a valid reason not to hunt sharks for meat?"

Then again, I also heard that pigs are quite delicious, maybe the next next poll should be "what is a valid reason not to hunt or breed pigs for meat?"


It would be interesting though to have restaraunts named "Willy's", "Jaws", "Babe", and so on.



As for extinct species.

If there's one species extinct, then the whole system will balance itself. The question is, will you like the new balanced system?

If we humankind gone extinct, I'm sure that the whole system will balance itself.

Though so far, it seems that the reason that the nature exist now is for us to use it. Now really, I'm serious, it's as if the true reason that nature exist is so that we can use it. So if we are extinct, then nature basically lost its purpose to exist. So we must use nature, and we should it wisely just like on how we should do things wisely on other things.

Unfortunately, there's a group of people who wished for humankind to be gone for the 'benefit' of nature.

Though 'their' true reason might be because 'they' want the humankind to disappear so that 'they' can use nature only for 'themself'? How greedy, 'they' are trying to eat all the whale meats by 'themself'!



It should be noted that if the whales population in certain places dropped, it might have been not because they were endangered globally, it might have been that they just stop going to some places where they usually hang out. The ocean is a BIG place you know, around 3/4 of the Earth's surface is water.

And it should be noted that there are other reasons other than food on why whales were hunt.

[PaulTB]

Several reasons that would made me on not to hunt whales for meat: [...]
I hope you enjoy your dolphin mercury burgers then.

[mad pierrot]

I hope you enjoy your dolphin mercury burgers then.

That is the funniest thing I've heard all week.
Btw, I had Whale meat for the first time last night, and it was


TASTY

:gohan:

[Maciamo]

I would have chosen all the poll's option, but as it was only one choice, I went for endangered.

[PaulTB]

I would have chosen all the poll's option, but as it was only one choice, I went for endangered.

Hope you don't eat cod (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/2361763.stm) ;-)

[jerry4]

i guess the scientific community provided all the valid reasons one needs....

[duff_o_josh]

nooooo not cod, damn them! its so yummy. why are people against whale hunting, everything goes extinct from natural reasons. humans being a predator can cause extinction and it is natural, ofcourse we should be a bit conservitive with low numbers by why should we stop? its the natural process of evolution.

[Mamoru-kun]

Duff, with all due respect, your last message just made me sick... :kanashii: Fortunately, nobody tried to eat human meat, and say that it's tasty...
If really you -need- to eat meal (as I do), at least, -at least-, don't eat meat from spiecies almost extint, just for your -pleasure-...

[lexico]

Dang, you beat me to it, Mamoru-kun ! No, actually you're quite welcome, and thank you for a kind word for our cousins the whales ! :biggrin:nooooo not cod, damn them! its so yummy. why are people against whale hunting, everything goes extinct from natural reasons. humans being a predator can cause extinction and it is natural, ofcourse we should be a bit conservitive with low numbers by why should we stop? its the natural process of evolution.I can understand your lumper logic; it has certain merits that let one see what the splitters are missing. Whether they accept your extended usage or not, or course, is a completely different matter. One of the benefits would be logical consistency; projecting less of unnatural values onto nature that is impersonal by nature. One ideal society that might thrive on your idea would be pre-cultural or primitive societies before there were universally applicable ideas. Another would be anarchy. I could also say a cannibalistic society could accomodate the idea. Let-the-dog-eat-dog; who cares ? :biggrin:

I'd go for intelligence, endangered, cruelty, and food-poisoning, although the best reason should/could be because whales are cute and lovely. The last might be a bit hard because we don't communicate with them daily, but some people can partially decode whale signals. Love for whales, therefore, are more abstract and projecting rather than that of an interactive nature in which two satient beings share perception, ideas and feelings. There was an interesting Star Trek episode about whales crying for help... Perhaps the SETI project can learn a bit from studying whale communication. Yes !

a video of some "anti whale hunting" group trying to stop a whale hunt ship by any means.
...
Coastguard deploys a water-jet boat, and it drops sound charges in the
water as a further warning.The sound charges; are they explosives that resemble a weapon in naval warfare ?Anti whale-hunt ship yells over the radio (open channel) that the norwegian coastguard is trying to blow up their ship with explosives, and that they are taking in water !Perhaps in their victimisation-mode of thinking, they really thought they were under genuine attack ! ;-)Coastguard tries to stop them once more by dragging a rope in front of them, to entangle the propellor.Now the "activists" are panicking, o, dear !(here it gets idiotic) they avoid the rope, going full speed and rams straight into the side of the coastguards ship, smashing their own bough !We have seen what extremities paranoids would go to, to feel safer !while the coastguard ship is only in need of a fresh coat of paint Cruel reality !Anti whale-hunt ship yells over the radio "mayday mayday" we are going under etc. then limps away from the scene. (coastguard doesent follow them)This is interesting. In North America, "Mayday" is only used for air disaster, but perhaps "M'aidez" is used for water disasters also ? How about getting caught in a house or car swept away in a flood ? Or being in a bldg. in an earthquake ? Would people use "M'aidez" instead of SOS ?(they called mayday and said they were sinking. but appeared in a port hundred of miles away still afloat)That is hilarious !!! Love it !! Hahahaha...seriously, who on earth can be more dumb than them ?!If you haven't noticed, the "activist" kind (sorry if anyone did vounteer work as any kind of activist-- just one of my ignorant remarks as many others) aren't really the smartest kind; but they do help preserve a warm, tingling feeling that there is some good in this dog-eat-dog world. :-)they even documented every lie, and violation they did on film. it's like witnessing agains yourself in court...I know what you mean; and they wouldn't have gone to all the trouble if they were people who worried about their public image. In fact, what could be better than being in the "victimised-mode" when trying to protect the whales ? Solidarity, my friend, was the key to bringing democracy to Poland. Oh, the memories ! :blush:

[nurizeko]

If cows were endangered we wouldnt be allowed to hunt and eat them, delicacy smelicacy, whales are endangered and should and are off the menu.

[Mamoru-kun]

If cows were to desapear too, perhaps would it be time to finally create synthetic meat, or whatever it can be, without being forced to kill a living creature (except plants of course. Cut all those green things and trees! There's too much sssspiders there...beuuuuh :p ). No, seriously, wouldn't it be better (well, at least for our mind and/or soul)?

And amough all the suggestions of this topic (because they are cute, because they are almost instinct, because it's not good meat,...), I'm surprise not to see the most important one (well I mean, for me): because they just are living creatures, like us humans...

[duff_o_josh]

Duff, with all due respect, your last message just made me sick... :kanashii: Fortunately, nobody tried to eat human meat, and say that it's tasty...
If really you -need- to eat meal (as I do), at least, -at least-, don't eat meat from spiecies almost extint, just for your -pleasure-...

people eat things they like, some like burgers some like pasta some people like whale, maybe insteadof stopping whale hunting they just need to regulate how its done more carefully(i know they are trying). People dont just eat endagered whales, most places that i have been to in japan for whale are these small tiny fish that happen to be a whale? shouldnt i eat fish? people tend to push the extreme to stop people from enjoying something. i was talking with my friend and he said when he was in school and when he was young he had whale all the time, never beef. if one big whale can feed hundreds then so be it. Do you not value Humanity above animosity? sure we are animals, that just what scientist have said due to links through time.

Of course there are other ways....whats better, 100 cows dying, 1000 chickens or one whale? where is the difference?

[Mamoru-kun]

Sorry Duff, I just can't agree with you. Just because of pourcentages: killing one single wale if far more devastating than killing its equivalent mass of cows (even if 100 is perhaps not so far from the truth).

...but perhaps do I react that way because I don't know how tasts a wale ;-) (just kidding)

[duff_o_josh]

you also have to remember that most whale that is eaten in japan are small little whales, smaller then a sockeye salmon. Is that a big deal? the thing isnt cute, it doesnt make nuge noises. where is the harm in it?

[Mamoru-kun]

I didn't know that. Do you mean that it is another specie than the big wales we see at television, and that that specie is not endangered? If yes, I really beg you pardon...but if no, if those "small wales" are endangered too, or even worse, if those wales are childs of those big wales we see on television, for me it makes no difference: in a single way, don't touch animals (wether animals or their environment) if they are about to desapear, more especially if it's only for the human's pleasure.

[lexico]

People dont just eat endagered whales, most places that i have been to in japan for whale are these small tiny fish that happen to be a whale ?you also have to remember that most whale that is eaten in japan are small little whales, smaller then a sockeye salmon. Is that a big deal ? the thing isn't cute, it doesnt make nuge noises. where is the harm in it ?You mean on top of eating whale flesh, you eat baby whales ? :shock:

[Mamoru-kun]

Sorry Lexico. Seems that I posted first again :blush:
But I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one wishing a better life to those big-sea's-teddy-bears :-)

[Kara_Nari]

Hmm well I didnt read through, so hope that im not repeating something that somebody else has said.... but.... Whale hunting is not just unnecessary, but the flesh itself can eminate a certain toxin which can be detrimental to a persons health, if not actually killing the consumer.
If you dont believe me look it up, I learnt about it when going Whale and Dolphin watching once. Unfortunately my Japanese friend got a little harrassed for having eaten the flesh before, but the guide soon summed up the other reasons why we shouldnt eat it.
Also the fact that they used the blubber for soaps and other such things, when there are plenty of other sources available to make such things is a bit harsh.
But yeah, feel free to prove me wrong, I have been known to be a bit gullible in the past, but do look it up before assuming that what I have said is completely stupid.
When I have more time, I myself will do more research into the particular topic.

[Horizon]

From what I have heard, you are correct. Last I heard, they do hold a lot of toxins in their blubber alone.Mercury probably being one of them; just like sharks. It's kind of ironic, isn't it? We contaminate the sea and then that affects the wild-life in it and then we kill them and eat them and get even more contaminated ourselves.

Good, ol' nature's revenge really! :p

If cows were to desapear too, perhaps would it be time to finally create synthetic meat, or whatever it can be, without being forced to kill a living creature (except plants of course. Cut all those green things and trees! There's too much sssspiders there...beuuuuh :p ). No, seriously, wouldn't it be better (well, at least for our mind and/or soul)?

And amough all the suggestions of this topic (because they are cute, because they are almost instinct, because it's not good meat,...), I'm surprise not to see the most important one (well I mean, for me): because they just are living creatures, like us humans...

So...Animals shouldn't eat other animals either? Humans are animals and we're omnivorous, which, of course, means we eat both vegetables and meat. We need meant. However, we do need to be much, much more intelligent, responsible, respectful, cautious, wise, and everything like that as we go about it, especially if we're going to claim that we are superior and more intelligent.

Also, if humans stopped eating meat, we'd need much more bigger farms which would mean more habitat destruction and, thusly, more animal death and more animals going on the endangered list or, worst yet, going completely and utterly extinct.

Not to mention that, on big farms, big machinery is used to harvest the crops and quess what happens then? Field animals, like mice, rats, snakes, rabbits, and the like, get chopped up. And also they don't get eaten either. At least when we kill animals for food, we do use at least some of it. Or, more like it, we have the intention as I'm sure, in North America anyway, a lot of meat is brought and then kept in the freezer for 10+ years and becomes horribly freezer burnt, but nevertheless.

[duff_o_josh]

who eats the flesh? people eat the meat not the skin of a whale. has anyone here who is against whale actually ever eaten it? and they are not baby whales, they are a breed of whale that are just small.

[lexico]

Do you have a name for that small whale, Josh ?

[Void]

duff_o_josh
the smallest i found so far is 1,1 m from dolphins family
see if you can find yours here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea

[Horizon]

who eats the flesh? people eat the meat not the skin of a whale. has anyone here who is against whale actually ever eaten it? and they are not baby whales, they are a breed of whale that are just small.

Why precisely would we want to eat meat of an endangered animal that also has lots and lots of toxins in it? Doesn't make much sense to me...

Not to mention, I'm not sure it's legal to poach whales in Canada...

Also, how small is 'small'? I mean, it's a whale. And I've never heard of a tiny, little species of whale either and I'm quite knowledgeable about animals in general...

EDIT: Here's something here:

3) What is the smallest cetacean?
There are several contenders for the 'smallest cetacean award'. Hector's Dolphin, the Chilean Dolphin, the Vaquita and the Finless Porpoise can all be as small as 1.2m in length. In terms of weight, however, the Finless Porpoise is the lightest, only weighing between 30-45kg.

Taken from this site's FAQ area: http://www.cetacea.org

[Kara_Nari]

Why would people against whale hunting intentionally eat it?
Its not like a vegetarian who doesnt like the taste of the meat, opposed to one who is anti animal killing etc. Its on a slightly different scale.
Also if the whale hunters caught a 'baby whale' at first thinking that it was this 'small breed' of whale do you really think that they are going to release it back to the sea? If they are callous enough in the first place to be catching an endangered species for human consumption, I think that they are still going to be able to fetch a high price, because no matter how small a whale is, its always going to be bigger than your average salmon or snapper. Perhaps it could be of a similar size to a large tuna, but then Im not really in the mood to research this topic at this time.

[lexico]

Also if the whale hunters caught a 'baby whale' at first thinking that it was this 'small breed' of whale do you really think that they are going to release it back to the sea ? If they are callous enough in the first place to be catching an endangered species for human consumption...I believe they are hunting on a quota, and still bound by the whaling regulations. I would assume letting go of baby whales is a requirement. It's less a problem of callousness, but of legality and regulated whaling. There must be a happy balance somewhere. :blush:

[Kara_Nari]

Of course there are other ways....whats better, 100 cows dying, 1000 chickens or one whale? where is the difference?

Well there is actually a difference, that being that cows and chickens are bred for human consumption, as are salmon and other species of fishes.
If you like, you can show me a site on a whale farm where the whales are being bred for consumption and other unncecessary things... but I would have thought that if a whale farm existed, then wouldnt it be more for the preservation of an endangered species? Clearly that is a difference, no?

[duff_o_josh]

how are salmon bred for human consumption? is there salmon farms? if so i am unaware. i am asking the name of that small whale so ill post it soon. also how can you care enough for one animal and not the others? that makes no sense?and how is every whale suddenly endagered?! there is more then 100 different types of whale! how are they all endagered? the one whale that is endagered is the sperm whale and that is used for perfume. also the inuit of northern Canada hunt whales legally.

[Kara_Nari]

Yeah there are salmon farms. Also there are protected parts of rivers where the salmons go to lay their eggs that poachers/fishermen arent allowed to fish, and there are serious repercussions if they dont abide by these rules.
Its common knowledge that Whales are endangered. Otherwise there wouldnt be companies like Greenpeace etc trying to protect them. There wouldnt be anti Whaling campaigns all around the world.
Anyway, my initial argument was about the toxins in the whale meat.
I dont even mind that you dont care about Whales being hunted, thats your own choice. I was just stating a fact that I had learnt.
Also as I said before, look it up before assuming that im completely stupid.
Dont get me wrong, I enjoy reading your posts on other threads. But you are being ever so slightly belittling here.

[duff_o_josh]

the way you say things is like every whale in teh ocean is endagered, well they are not. also not every whale has toxins. Researching more i am begining to sway to your side only because i didnt realize how big of a role whales played in our oxygen cycle. Most greenpeace articles on whales are biased. also those protected salmon farms and river parts do not apply to native canadians who can do what they wish with salmon. wheres the protection there? they throw huge nets across the river and drag them in. also i never said you were stupid in any of my posts. as for calling me belittling, this cant all be positive, not all of us are hippies.

[Mamoru-kun]

Researching more i am begining to sway to your side only because i didnt realize how big of a role whales played in our oxygen cycle.
That is a good exemple of what I don't like with nature preservation nowodays (nothing with you especially Duff). The fact that: "We must protect X because it brings us something good". Does it mean that we shouldn't protect something if it doesn't specifically "bring" something good to human beings?!?

[lexico]

That is a good exemple of what I don't like with nature preservation nowodays (nothing with you especially Duff). The fact that: "We must protect X because it brings us something good". Does it mean that we shouldn't protect something if it doesn't specifically "bring" something good to human beings?!?Good point, Mamoru-kun. I totally agree to your point that sometimes 'use' should come secondary. Some things should be valued in themselves.

I also feel that since to be able to see the value of something without consulting the dollar value or the environmental value is sometimes almost impossible to convey to another person, and to win support, there comes the inevitable "good use" thingy just to find a common ground between people having vastly differing ideas. In that sense, I also approve of Duff's reasoning.

[duff_o_josh]

well for me i dont see a problem eating whale, and there are lots of people like that. its fare enough to push the fact that whales play a huge role in our oxygen cycle to try and sway people to stop hunting them for food, but i am sure that the thousands of whales that died to prove this point were over looked by conservation groups. a report by bbc news said that japans annual quota for the hunting of whales to use as scientific purposes and then later sold as food is 3000 a year which is 0.05% of the minke whale population which they want to hunt.

i am sorry for going off the original topic,

i chose other, because whales playa big part in our oxygen cycle.

[lexico]

Duff, those are very interesting stuff. if it isn't too much trouble, could you perhaps share some of the links ? please ?

[duff_o_josh]

sure here you go!
this is for my reason of choosing other.
http://www.omplace.com/omsites/discover/faq/index.html#038

this is where i got the information about the proposed quota for hunting minke whales
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3907927.stm

[lexico]

Thank you so much, Duff ! For all the hard work ! :bow:

[nurizeko]

Eating endangered whale is like eating panda without guilt or remorse.

I dont see why eating a whale is a delicacy, to me it seems more of a lack of compassion and you know, respect for life in general, when you eat an endangered species.

Of course thats my personal opinion so, its no way universal dogma or anything.

I have a taste for beef so if cows became endangered, it might be a big deal for me to give it up, some folk might have grown up on whale....unlikely, but still, a possibility.

[mad pierrot]

Has anyone tried that whale burger sold in Hokkaido yet?

[isanatori]

Has anyone tried that whale burger sold in Hokkaido yet?
I have. Why?

[Mamoru-kun]

I have. Why?
.........perhaps because you'll be asked how it tasted, don't you think? :p

[isanatori]

.........perhaps because you'll be asked how it tasted, don't you think? :p

Then, i'll say it tasted good...which is quite a subjective answer, isn't it?
The meat in the "kujira burger" is prepared as "tatsuta-age" (meat is shôyu-marinated and starch-fried).

[mad pierrot]

Thanks! It sounds good. I've had whale before, at a sushi bar of all places, and in curry. I was wondering how they'd prepare burger meat from whale. In any case, it's something I'd like to try. I wonder if they have any restaurants in Osaka?

:-)

[isanatori]

Thanks! It sounds good. I've had whale before, at a sushi bar of all places, and in curry. I was wondering how they'd prepare burger meat from whale. In any case, it's something I'd like to try. I wonder if they have any restaurants in Osaka?

:-)

Unfortunately, Lucky Pierrot have only restaurants in Hakodate.
Anyway, you can certainly have "kujira no tastuta-age" in Osaka or Tokyo.

Here's a list of restaurants serving whale : http://www.e-kujira.or.jp/link/kujiraryouri.html
There are 3 in Osaka-fu :

■徳家
http://www.tokuya.jp/
　大阪府大阪市中央区千日前1-7-11
　06-6211-4448

■むらさき
http://www.murasaki-osaka.com/
　大阪府大阪市西区江戸堀1-15-4
　06-6441-3871

■和風レストラン くまのじ
http://www.worldranch.co.jp/(ワールド牧場)
　大阪府南河内郡河南町白木1456-2 ワールド牧場内
　0721-93-6655

[mad pierrot]

Great links, man. I really do appreciate it.


:-)

I'll be sure to take pictures when I get around to eating there!

[Limonette]

Whales are sentient beings meaning they can experience suffering. Being endangered is also a concern. Killing very intelligent animals seems worse to me. But when the Makah tribe in Washington hunted a whale I couldn't help but thinking that was better than the hundreds of cows, pigs and chickens they would of eaten otherwise. Wild animals don't have a choice to hunt, humans do. Eating meat is not as healthy for people either. I don't like hunting, but I think it is more humane to hunt in the wild, than have factory farms. For example, tuna caught in the wild living their natural lives, is better than the tuna from the fish farms. Or hunting a deer in the wild, better than eating a poor cow bred for slaughter living a short, cramped and miserable life. Ok that's all I had to say :)

[duff_o_josh]

well everything can be considered a sentient creature then. with what you have said its the same as gas stations, your probably right we should refine it out in the middle of some dessert or forest. we dont need store either with this logic. captivity...wild... things are bred in captivity so those in the wild can live. mankinds gift to the animal kingdom. we need meat, meat it is good most of the time. :blush:

[Limonette]

You're right every animal is a sentient creature - that's why I'm a vegetarian, that and for health reasons and environmental reasons.

[lexico]

The difference between an omnivore and a vegetarian may be more than just what they eat, as many small things and big have triggered the omnivore to choose the vegetarian way of life. Sometimes the transition could have been an awakening, a realization of something that is very personal and also quite universal, but not objective. For the Native Americans, at least giving thanks to the being that was slaughtered to give humans the meat was the custom practised in all earnest. So was it with the Paleo-Asian tribes such as the Ainu and the Gilyak of Hokkaido, Sakhalin, and the lower Amur. I do not crave after the meat, sometimes disliking the idea of eating it, sometimes devouring what is prepared before me. In the olden times when meat was not factory-farm produced, meat was scarce, expensive, and always taken with gratitude. With meat readily available both in quantity and price, I think the appreciation is not what is used to be. I am happy to go without meat; vegetables are enough to keep me happy although I have enjoyed ribs with a Buddhist friend. :)

[Horizon]

You're right every animal is a sentient creature - that's why I'm a vegetarian, that and for health reasons and environmental reasons.

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but, well...Animals get killed by vegetarians as well. Big farms use machinery to collect their crops or whatever and lots of animals like rabbits, snakes, rats, et cetera get chopped up into little bits pretty much and, well, at least the other animals don't go completely and utterly to waste.

As for environmental reasons, farming isn't really much better than raising that many animals. One still has to steal precious habitat from other creatures for it.

And, according to what I've heard, protein (from meat of course) was what allowed human to evolve our 'intelligence' (although, using that logic, you'd think carnivores would be at about the level of a rocket scientist at one point in their lives, but ehh...)

And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?

[lexico]

I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but, well...Animals get killed by vegetarians as well. Big farms use machinery to collect their crops or whatever and lots of animals like rabbits, snakes, rats, et cetera get chopped up into little bits pretty much and, well, at least the other animals don't go completely and utterly to waste.Good point; but are you saying that it's okay or good if the killed animal gets to be used for human consumption ? Although they don't get the chance to end up on our dinner table, they turn into fertiliser. Isn't that some positive contribution to the nitrogen cycle of the ecosystem/farming/mankind, and hence good according to your standard ?As for environmental reasons, farming isn't really much better than raising that many animals. One still has to steal precious habitat from other creatures for it.All major technological innovation have resulted in an increase in food porduction, leading to supporting a greater population, which then lead to more exploitation of the natural environment by transforming it into agrable fields and paddies. Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?And, according to what I've heard, protein (from meat of course) was what allowed human to evolve our 'intelligence' (although, using that logic, you'd think carnivores would be at about the level of a rocket scientist at one point in their lives, but ehh...)As you've pointed out, the thesis that "protein is essential in higher intelligence" is only a myth. It is probably a corruption of the medical observation that feti, infants, and children who lack the minimum required daily intake of the essential amino acids (highly subjective standard btw) suffer from all kinds of problems including lowered immunity to disease and toxins, slower physical growth, and underdeveloped intelligence. How could they not suffer, for all genetic information are to be expressed through enzymes which is basically protein. But above the minimum required, excess protein intake are just wasted serving no particular pupose other than enriching urine with amino acids dissolved in it. That is another reason why vegetable consumption is far more flexible and wholesome to the human body. O, I forgot, it is also possible to thank the vegetale before you eat it. I have thanked the lettuce I had in my salad; it made me feel quite comfortable and healthy, and my stomach sang a song of praise to the noble lettuce, figuratively speaking. :p And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?That's what I thought myself, but please see Mad Pierrot's post #14 here; Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting !!!! (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12724&highlight=buddha+whale+meat) or my response to it here I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot. (http://www.jref.com/forum/showpost.php?p=171728&postcount=18). In summary, Siddhartha Buddha died of chronic mesenteric infarction, that is internal bleeding of the intestines following a circulatory shutdown, after eating a good dish of pork. It appears that the primitive church of Buddhism did not prohibit the eating of meat but only did the individual's behavior (participating either actively or passively) of killing an animal for food, and neither did the Buddhist canon of Tibet, Mongolia, China, Korea, or Japan which all descended as translations from a now-lost sanskrit or pali writings of this early school of Buddhism.

[Kara_Nari]

Tibetian buddhist monks eat meat.
They are the ONLY monks that supposedly do.
NOt only do monks not eat meat because the animals have been killed, but also because of the smell. Hence the reason why they dont eat garlic, onions, spring onions and two other things, which I cant remember off the top of my head.

[duff_o_josh]

And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?
wouldnt all of japan be vegetarian then? :relief:

[Horizon]

No...There are other religions in Japan, other than Buddhism. :souka:

Good point; but are you saying that it's okay or good if the killed animal gets to be used for human consumption ? Although they don't get the chance to end up on our dinner table, they turn into fertiliser. Isn't that some positive contribution to the nitrogen cycle of the ecosystem/farming/mankind, and hence good according to your standard?

Not really. If you kill something, you're supposed to eat it. Occasionally I suppose it's fine, but not in such a manner. Other animals do it sometimes, yes, but they don't do it nearly as much as humans do.


All major technological innovation have resulted in an increase in food porduction, leading to supporting a greater population, which then lead to more exploitation of the natural environment by transforming it into agrable fields and paddies. Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?

Those things are indeed one way to keep the population down. However, 'human suffering' apparently isn't occuring nearly enough as I still hear the human population is about 6 billion people now. I think that qualifies as being over-populated.

As you've pointed out, the thesis that "protein is essential in higher intelligence" is only a myth. It is probably a corruption of the medical observation that feti, infants, and children who lack the minimum required daily intake of the essential amino acids (highly subjective standard btw) suffer from all kinds of problems including lowered immunity to disease and toxins, slower physical growth, and underdeveloped intelligence. How could they not suffer, for all genetic information are to be expressed through enzymes which is basically protein. But above the minimum required, excess protein intake are just wasted serving no particular pupose other than enriching urine with amino acids dissolved in it. That is another reason why vegetable consumption is far more flexible and wholesome to the human body. O, I forgot, it is also possible to thank the vegetale before you eat it. I have thanked the lettuce I had in my salad; it made me feel quite comfortable and healthy, and my stomach sang a song of praise to the noble lettuce, figuratively speaking. :p

Oh, I see. Perhaps that's what they meant then or something...:?

That's what I thought myself, but please see Mad Pierrot's post #14 here; Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting !!!! (http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12724&highlight=buddha+whale+meat) or my response to it here I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot. (http://www.jref.com/forum/showpost.php?p=171728&postcount=18). In summary, Siddhartha Buddha died of chronic mesenteric infarction, that is internal bleeding of the intestines following a circulatory shutdown, after eating a good dish of pork. It appears that the primitive church of Buddhism did not prohibit the eating of meat but only did the individual's behavior (participating either actively or passively) of killing an animal for food, and neither did the Buddhist canon of Tibet, Mongolia, China, Korea, or Japan which all descended as translations from a now-lost sanskrit or pali writings of this early school of Buddhism.

Thank you for answering.

And all along I thought Buddhits were oh-so nice...:souka:

Tibetian buddhist monks eat meat.
They are the ONLY monks that supposedly do.
NOt only do monks not eat meat because the animals have been killed, but also because of the smell. Hence the reason why they dont eat garlic, onions, spring onions and two other things, which I cant remember off the top of my head.

Thank you for your explanation as well. I appreciate it! :p

[Limonette]

Some animals probably do get killed during the farming process, Horizon, but I imagine that many run away at the sound of the machinery. I doubt there's been any statistics or studies done about it. But even so, it takes alot more land to raise feed for meat animals than to feed vegetarians.

If anyone is interested in the environmental aspects of this, here's an article for you:

http://www.veg.ca/issues/enintro.html

[Limonette]

Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?

That's interesting Lex. I don't think it quite balances it out though, but I like the theory. Not that human suffering is good, and also nature suffers when man suffers do to our pollution and so on. We can destroy the earth long before it can destroy us. But "natures revenge" would be a great theme for a book or movie, and that's the case sometimes I think.

I think mad cow disease could be classified as cow's revenge - we turn vegetarian cows into cannibals, they pass the disease they get back to us. However, it's really us doing it to ourselves, and the cows. I read a couple books on mad cow disease. (I like reading about strange diseases - they're fascinating - plus the politics that goes along with it.)

You're very good at explaining things such as what you say in the next paragraph which I won't quote because it's too long - anyway I'm basically in agreement with you. Whew! What a long and tedious sentence. What the human body needs in protein is very low and you're right the excess protein is excreted which is hard on the body in various ways. Americans for example eat way too much protein for their own good health.

For some reason I got the impression that Siddhartha didn't die but instead vaporized or changed into a ray of light or something like that. I read the book of Siddhartha when young, think I got a wrong impression, lol.

Also interesting about Buddhism, Lex and Kara Nari.

[strongvoicesforward]

The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.

Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.

[yukio_michael]

The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.

Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.No, that's not a reason, that's a vegan moralisation of an abstract idea, used in the stead of actual facts in order to forward a isolated agenda--- there isn't anything logical about it.

[Mycernius]

The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.

Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.
Humans do need meat to survive, unless you want to eat soya everyday. Meat is the prime source of protein in a human diet. the only plant that can give us all the protien we need is soya. On another note meat also provides the energy for our brain and is one of the reasons that man is intelligent. It is the diet of meat that allowed human brains to develop to the point they are at now. A purely vegetarien diet in our past would have left man still up the trees. Humans on a whole are omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and plants. To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies. The problem with todays diet is the meat is to fatty and groomed to our taste. The same goes for plants. If we still had to survive by hunting and gathering we would still have an omnivorus diet. Because of supplements and the way we can control our dietry intake that allows more and more people to live vegan lifestyle. No matter what your choice, if it was down to survival you would eat meat. Only our intelligence allows us to make this choice., and the reason we have that chioce is because of our ancestors diet of meat and plants.

[strongvoicesforward]

No, that's not a reason, that's a vegan moralisation of an abstract idea, used in the stead of actual facts in order to forward a isolated agenda--- there isn't anything logical about it.

Yukio, what is abstract about not needing meat to survive? We surely do not. If we did then then vegetarians or vegans would not survive long after adopting those eating habbits.

Sure, the veg group is small, but I wouldn`t consider them isolated. They are constantly outreaching to the communities they are in and to friends and family. Neither are they shunned by society. Keep in mind, most vegans/vegetarians were once flesh eaters themselves and came to understand that flesh consumption need not be a part of our habbits to survive.

If meat is not needed for survival, which in this era, it is not, then it is quite logical to choose those actions which do not cause pain and suffering. To choose to cause pain and suffering when it need not be chosen is illogical -- that is if you agree that causing pain and suffering is wrong. I know I do.

[strongvoicesforward]

Humans do need meat to survive, unless you want to eat soya everyday. Meat is the prime source of protein in a human diet. the only plant that can give us all the protien we need is soya. On another note meat also provides the energy for our brain and is one of the reasons that man is intelligent. It is the diet of meat that allowed human brains to develop to the point they are at now.

Well, thanks for admitting that we do not need meat. Surely we don`t, and that soy can provide all our protein needs is admitted by you and most others is a concession on this point. But, besides soy, nuts and seeds also can provide a large portion of our protein.

It is conjecture about flesh eating being responsible for our intelligence. Perhaps it could also be responsible for our aggressiveness. After all, we war against one another and destroy the planet and her eco-systems. All that doesn`t seem very "intelligent" to me. So, perhaps meat is responsible for our stupidity.

[strongvoicesforward]

A purely vegetarien diet in our past would have left man still up the trees. Humans on a whole are omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and plants. To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies.


Both of us have no way of knowing if a vegetarian diet would have left us in the trees. What we do know now is that we are not in the trees now and therefore that point of "tree business" is moote. Our past need not rule our present and future. Surely we have evolved physically and mentally.

Mentally, we are now able to muse philisophically on morals and ethics and think to extend our circle of compassion -- rather than leaning on our past history of brutality, exclusion and inflicting death for survival.

Being an omnivore does not mean we must eat both meat and plants to survive. It means we are capable of surviving off either (i.e. we can choose). We can make a decision about our diets.

And, while I will concede that we can eat meat and that in early stages of our evolution it was perhaps necessary to do so to survive, I think it is up for debate as to whether we were designed for meat consumption. Of course, we can handle meat consumption, but that doesn`t mean we were optimally designed for it.

First, we are not biologically equiped with attributes that lets us catch prey.

2. Our incisors are not pronounced as are carnivores' are.

3. We have flat back teeth meant for grinding as do plant eaters.

4. Carnivores have short digestive tracks. Ours are long like plant eaters.

5. Humans are very prone to becoming sick from raw meat. Carnivores are able to eat even meat that is putrified.

6. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C. We do not.

Now, I am not saying that this means we were designed to be herbivores. But, I am saying that it throws enough doubt on the belief that we were designed for optimal health or survival through meat consumption.

[strongvoicesforward]

To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies. The problem with todays diet is the meat is to fatty and groomed to our taste. The same goes for plants.

The same does not go for plants. You are right that one would probably get very sick if one resorted to eating all meat, but you are wrong in assuming the same for those who choose to eat only plant based foods. In fact, many do eat only plant based foods and you will be hard pressed to find any group of doctors that would state being a vegetarian is not good for our bodies.

However, it is not very hard to find studies or professional health associations that say vegetarianism can be very good for you.

If we still had to survive by hunting and gathering we would still have an omnivorus diet. Because of supplements and the way we can control our dietry intake that allows more and more people to live vegan lifestyle. No matter what your choice, if it was down to survival you would eat meat. Only our intelligence allows us to make this choice., and the reason we have that chioce is because of our ancestors diet of meat and plants.


This whole thing above is irrelevant for this era. We are not in a fight for survival, and like you stated, we can choose, therefore we should choose to not harm life by causing pain. And trying to get a little back to the whaling topic, Japanese in no way need to expend all the financial recourses it does to send hunters and ships into the oceans and homes of sea animals to kill creatures that are highly intelligent.

[Mycernius]

You make some good points, but just for clarification about our digestive tract. If we were supposed to be plant eaters then our appendix would be bigger than it is. Our digestive system not only has problems with some meat, but also with cellulose tissue. A combination of meat and plant makes a good diet.
We are biologically equipped to hunt for prey. We stand on two legs. It is a more effiecient way of getting around and we can walk four legged animals to death, a hunting tactic that our ancestors used and is still used by some tribes in Africa. Our eyesight is binocular, an adaptation to judge distances and a trait found in most carniverous and omnivorous creatures. Even our closest relatives will eat meat to supplement their diets. There are film records of Chimps activitly hunting and eating monkeys. Pandas will kill and eat sheep to supplement their own diet when bamboo is difficult to find.
5. Humans are very prone to becoming sick from raw meat. Carnivores are able to eat even meat that is putrified.
Not true for all carnivores. Cats will not eat putrid meat. Dogs and other scavenger animals can become ill after eating putrid or diseased meat. Humans can eat some raw meats without becoming sick. Beef, and some fish spring to mind.

Note: Maybe a new thread would be better to continue this

[Bibinbahell]

Sorry. I just had to post this:

Least Harm Principle (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)

[yukio_michael]

Yukio, what is abstract about not needing meat to survive? We surely do not. If we did then then vegetarians or vegans would not survive long after adopting those eating habbits.Although I don't include vegetarians with vegans, because they do not moralise their eating habbits, they are so often brow-beaten by vegans to "go all the way", in order to facilitate some sort of mock-ethical goal.

It's true what you say, but it is better to word it, "it is possible to survive without meat." In actuality, many people who go vegan become very sick, because it's difficult for them to provide the body with the right ammount of proteins needed--- Veganism is a luxury, despite what people claim--- it is practioned by those who can afford to do so.

Sure, the veg group is small, but I wouldn`t consider them isolated. They are constantly outreaching to the communities they are in and to friends and family. Neither are they shunned by society. Keep in mind, most vegans/vegetarians were once flesh eaters themselves and came to understand that flesh consumption need not be a part of our habbits to survive.Vegans represent 2% of the total world population, and they aren't the most popular sub-group on the planet. The work that PETA has done often ostracises them from the public moreso than it endears itself--- As for vegans, it is exactly this moralistic high ground that makes many people rail against them--- This has just been my personal experience with vegans--- I've even seen vegans make statements like "[as for Africans who had contracted HIV from infected bush meat]...haha! Don't eat meat!"... That's nearly an exact quote, I removed an explacative---

It's isolated, and one person's statement doesn't represent the group, but this is the mentality--- Human life is secondary to the lives of animals, which I find to be a skewed viewpoint when there is a purported moral element to your cause. A PETA spokewoman once said that even if she knew that animal testing could cure cancer in humans, she still would be against it--- It's that sort of isolated ethics that derides the whole movement.

If meat is not needed for survival, which in this era, it is not, then it is quite logical to choose those actions which do not cause pain and suffering. To choose to cause pain and suffering when it need not be chosen is illogical -- that is if you agree that causing pain and suffering is wrong. I know I do.Please, again, stop using absolutes to make your point as in "meat is not needed for survival"--- We all know that vegans are capable of staying alive on a vegan diet though I would love to see a vegan football team versus a non-vegan team---

The actions I choose are not those that I intend to cause pain and suffering. It's inevitable that animals may suffer for my health, so in Japan, before eating we say Itadakimasu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Shinto) which means, "I will receive---" ...Japanese say "itadakimasu" ("I will humbly receive [this food]") in order to show proper thankfulness to the preparer of the meal in particular and more generally to all those living things that lost their lives to make the meal.

Causing pain and suffering is an abstract idea much like war. We know that war is bad, but sometimes great wars are fought for very precious freedoms. Humans are alive today because of their diets and ability to survive, nobody chooses to cause pain and suffering, it is an abstract part of human survival that some animals die and others live.

[strongvoicesforward]

You make some good points, but just for clarification about our digestive tract. If we were supposed to be plant eaters then our appendix [do you mean appendix or intestines???] would be bigger than it is. Our digestive system not only has problems with some meat, but also with cellulose tissue.

Sure, we can eat meat. Sure we can eat cellulose tissue. And, yes, we can have trouble with both. I can`t say for certain we were designed to eat meat. Maybe we weren`t and it is possible that if we weren`t, our bodies may have gradually evolved into being able to eat it.

But, have we already evolved away from that being our optimal source of food? Remember, all carnvores create their own vitamin C. We do not.

Some will say look at our closest primates and will point out that chimpanzees eat meat, such as other primates they catch. That is true, but in general that is when their plant food has become scarce depending on the season or prolonged abnormal weather such as a drought.

Looking at the human anatomy now, I would say that our bodies have moved away from a natural base of meat for food. It is funny how people mention our canine teeth. Look at them. They are nubs. Barely useful.

But our intestinal tracts are quite long (around 25 ft) in comparison to other carnivores. Like us, plant eating animals also have a rather long tract.

[strongvoicesforward]

Sorry. I just had to post this:

Least Harm Principle (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)

The least harm principle is flawed because if one were to choose to eat meat in order to decrease plant consumption and hence decrease harvesting acreage (i.e. meaning less field animals or forest displaced animals from dying), one would then have to increase meat consumption and production.

It takes more acreage of land to harvest for food(grain etc...) to raise animals with for a few number of people to benefit from that meat than if that plant food were to go directly to the cosumers. Value added along the lines of production causes less efficiency and therefore more energy input to create. Therefore, more land is required to raise beef and therefore more animals are killed in the fields.

[strongvoicesforward]

Although I don't include vegetarians with vegans, because they do not moralise their eating habbits, they are so often brow-beaten by vegans to "go all the way", in order to facilitate some sort of mock-ethical goal.

I`m a vegetarian and have never been "brow beaten" by vegans I know. There are a lot of vegetarians who have become so out of moral reasons, which I have done. But I am guessing that most who do so out of moral reasons do slowly slide into becoming vegans. I am doing so.

I think very few vegans start out as vegans. Most slide along the spectrum starting at vegetarianism.

[Mycernius]

But, have we already evolved away from that being our optimal source of food? Remember, all carnvores create their own vitamin C. We do not.


How many times have I mentioned that we are omnivores. I never mentioned humans are carnivores. Sure we don't process vitamin C because we are not carnivores, but as I mentioned we don't process celluose very well either because we are not true vegetarians. I will say this one more time to see if we finally get it and then I will leave you to your vague arguments. Our natural diet is omnivorous, plant and meat.

[strongvoicesforward]

How many times have I mentioned that we are omnivores. I never mentioned humans are carnivores. Sure we don't process vitamin C because we are not carnivores, but as I mentioned we don't process celluose very well either because we are not true vegetarians. I will say this one more time to see if we finally get it and then I will leave you to your vague arguments. Our natural diet is omnivorous, plant and meat.

I havn`t said we weren`t omnivores. I stated that there are enough reasons to consider that we may not have been originally designed to eat meat, but that we evolved to do so, and that now we may already be designed or have, or are evolving into a being whose optimal diet is not one of eating meat.

Have you "finally" got it? ;-)

[yukio_michael]

I havn`t said we weren`t omnivores. I stated that there are enough reasons to consider that we may not have been originally designed to eat meat, but that we evolved to do so, and that now we may already be designed or have, or are evolving into a being whose optimal diet is not one of eating meat.

Have you "finally" got it? ;-)I'm also done with this argument as well, but I just would like to point out your (and most vegans) fatal flaw--- in that people DO NOT evolve over a period of thousands of years, some vegans say, oh "well your stomach forgets how to digest meat", (as if that knowledge were lost forever), but wrong again--- Your stomach may grow acustomed to melba toast and vegetables and then yes, eating a porterhouse steak may upset it, but the same types of things happen to people who are on IV diets in the hospital, or people who are anorexic, or have been starved, they simply need to gradualy change their diets.

Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with why some people choose to eat a tofu burger in the modern age. Evolution of all species happens over a period of millions and millions of years by a process that dictates that animals who are best adapted to an environment survive, and those who are not, die out.

Lastly, evolution happens because of some action, say if a certain animal was pre-determined to run in traffic, that animal would die out--- saying that, the action of eating meat or not eating meat would dictate the 'so-called' evolution if it were even feasible to measure (which it isn't), since only 2% of the population (at best in some places) are not meat eaters, your argument actually supports eating meat for survival, as that is the predominant action, and humans are thriving.

edit: Personally I don't care WHAT people eat, just don't tell me what to eat and use a moral argument to support your statement. Thanks.

[strongvoicesforward]

I'm also done with this argument as well, but I just would like to point out your (and most vegans) fatal flaw--- in that people DO NOT evolve over a period of thousands of years, some vegans say, oh "well your stomach forgets how to digest meat", (as if that knowledge were lost forever), but wrong again--- Your stomach may grow acustomed to melba toast and vegetables and then yes, eating a porterhouse steak may upset it, but the same types of things happen to people who are on IV diets in the hospital, or people who are anorexic, or have been starved, they simply need to gradualy change their diets.

Why are you basing your whole argument on whether we are evolving away from eating meat on the stomach? Why don`t you look at your puny stubby little canine teeth? Why don`t you take into account we cannot create our own vitamin C? How about the rather long length of our intestines?
You might want to add a little more aresenal to your counterargument.

edit: Personally I don't care WHAT people eat, just don't tell me what to eat and use a moral argument to support your statement. Thanks.

Care or desire is not based on reason -- let alone absolutely based on morals and ethics, which however you may wish decsisions of right or wrong come about, are taken into account to decide what actions should be permitted by civilized socieities.

Would the reason and logic of your construct hold up under more scrutiny? You only need change the variables to see. Look:

Personally I don't care WHAT people treat slaves like, just don't tell me what to treat my slaves like and use a moral argument to support your statement. Thanks.

You`re welcome.

[Clawn]

I agree with eating whale meat, as I agree with eating most meat. But, I disagree with eating the meat of a whale that is an endangered species.

[bossel]

Why are you basing your whole argument on whether we are evolving away from eating meat on the stomach? Why don`t you look at your puny stubby little canine teeth? Why don`t you take into account we cannot create our own vitamin C? How about the rather long length of our intestines?
What would that prove? Only that homo sapiens is omnivore, but capable of living on meat-only, mixed or non-meat diets.

[strongvoicesforward]

What would that prove? Only that homo sapiens is omnivore, but capable of living on meat-only, mixed or non-meat diets.

Bossel, do you have any data that show humans are capable of living on meat "only"? If I were a betting man, someone trying to do so would soon find their bodies wrecked.

Scurvey on ships during long ocean voyages in the past was not the result of just not having food or having run out of meat. It appeard due to no vitamin C, which is what is found in fruit.

What do you think would happen if you ate meat only and got no vitamin C?

Or, perhaps I am wrong on the matter -- can you get vitamin C from a meat only diet? You tell me.

Besides, I haven`t denied we were omnivores. But, I would suggest our meat intake in nature as it was when we ventured out of the trees and onto the savannahs was one of opportunity as scavengers. Sure, that probably or may have jumpstarted our bodies into adapting to eat meat even more efficiently -- but, as I stated, there are some physical characteristics which may give a hint to the possibility that we are moving physiologically towards a body more optimally built for being vegetarian.

My argument is one of movement on the spectrum -- not static on the spectrum.

[Revenant]

In the natural world of foods, where would one get Vitamin B12 from a strict vegetarian diet?

[strongvoicesforward]

In the natural world of foods, where would one get Vitamin B12 from a strict vegetarian diet?

If you mean strict vegetarian in the terms of the vegan diet, you would not be able to. I concede that you could not.

But, a vegetarian diet that still allows for milk intake would suffice. While a cow would still be oppressed for obtaining this source of B12, it would not mean that the cows life would be sacrificed as a result. Eggs obtained from free range chickens would also provide B12.

If a chicken is in a free range environment that takes into the needs of its species, cruelty would be very limited.

[bossel]

[size="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Bossel, do you have any data that show humans are capable of living on meat "only"? If I were a betting man, someone trying to do so would soon find their bodies wrecked.
Eskimos. They may live for months (earlier on maybe years) from meat only.

Scurvey on ships during long ocean voyages in the past was not the result of just not having food or having run out of meat. It appeard due to no vitamin C, which is what is found in fruit. ...or blood.

as I stated, there are some physical characteristics which may give a hint to the possibility that we are moving physiologically towards a body more optimally built for being vegetarian.
Which movement? For evolution you need selection, but there is virtually no selective pressure for homo sapiens anymore.

[strongvoicesforward]

Eskimos. They may live for months (earlier on maybe years) from meat only.

And Eskimos have a lower life expectancy than others on average (I`ll have to find the source and study I had read about their high fat content and the results of that kind of diet).

Bossel, I wouldn`t deny people could live entirely off meat. Perhaps they could but I would much rather go on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet rather than a whole meat diet. The latter would probably be much more dangerous.

...or blood.[/blood]

lol. Hmmm...I would rather eat an orange and feel much sager making a decision on the texture and color of the skin as to the safeness of it, rather than wondering about the origin of the blood placed in front of me in a glass or in the meat tissue of rare food.

Question -- is the vitamin C damaged during the cooking process of the food to well done level?

I just don`t think many people would find it too appealing chomping into a blood soaked piece of meat. In today`s slaughterhouses and factory farms, one might not want to trust the many ex-convicts working there for cleanliness to such an extent to want to eat meat butchered from them.

[quote]Which movement? For evolution you need selection, but there is virtually no selective pressure for homo sapiens anymore.

Agreed. Mutations however can still impact change.

Just look at us. We are not well designed for catching our own food. We are meat eaters of opportunity -- much like scavengers. Our canines are nubs. Our back teeth are flat for grinding like all herbivores. Our intestines are quite long. We have no claws, retractable or otherwise, our fingers are soft for reaching out and grasping, we couldn`t catch many more things than a turtle, sloth, or babie animals we come upon in dens or nests. Sure, we are omnivores in the sense we can consume both. But, I would never make meat the base of my food pyramid.

As for the choice of my diet, I do so out of ethical considerations -- not one based on what my ancestors did a few few hundred thousand years ago, and definitely not just because agri-corporations have found a way to make meat so cheep that it requires animals to live miserable lives in factory farms and then savagely slaughtered for a society of gluttons.

But, as you can see this thread is getting dragged off from Valid Reasons to Hunt whales into a thread debating vegetarianism, and part of that is my fault. I will soon try to start a thread on the topic. Perhaps one already exists and I just have not seen it. I think if we want to continue this topic we should move it.

As for the time being now, I am pretty much involved in the religion discussion/debates.

[Sensuikan San]

And Eskimos have a lower life expectancy than others on average (I`ll have to find the source and study I had read about their high fat content and the results of that kind of diet).
Ever been up to the Far North SVF? I have.
I'm not surprised that their lfe expectancy is lower than some. Life is bloody cruel up there! Not just climate, but also so many of the historical/social issues that exist there, such as heavy drinking, drug taking, atrocious living conditions in a quasi-modern society etc. etc.
Do them a favor and go up there and show them how to grow vegetables in their backyards!
Bossel, I wouldn`t deny people could live entirely off meat. Perhaps they could but I would much rather go on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet rather than a whole meat diet. The latter would probably be much more dangerous.
What you say is quite true - but is anyone really suggesting a 100% meat diet? I think not in all seriousness.
I just don`t think many people would find it too appealing chomping into a blood soaked piece of meat.
That too is just, possibly true ... just. Personally ... I love steak tartare! So sue me!
In today`s slaughterhouses and factory farms, one might not want to trust the many ex-convicts working there for cleanliness to such an extent to want to eat meat butchered from them.
They probably wouldn't be too impressed at the criminal conditions in Chinese prisons where convicts are treated like slave labor to grow and harvest tea, or in many other countries where cheap immigrant (or cheap local) labour is exploited and (ab)used to pick cabbages, fruit, and other vegetables for ten cents on the dollar ... or wish to know about the cheap, suspect and even toxic chemicals that are daily sprayed on fruit and vegetable farms in many countries of the world, countries whose produce is imported regularly into the U.S. (Hell- they use cheap Mexican labor themselves!), Canada (Hell - so do we!), Australia, Europe - you name it!

Just look at us. We are not well designed for catching our own food. We are meat eaters of opportunity -- much like scavengers. Our canines are nubs. Our back teeth are flat for grinding like all herbivores. Our intestines are quite long. We have no claws, retractable or otherwise, our fingers are soft for reaching out and grasping, we couldn`t catch many more things than a turtle, sloth, or babie animals we come upon in dens or nests.
Well, bigfellah! That's just brilliant!
I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one! But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!
How in hell do you think we got to be so high in the food chain anyway?
Homo sapiens is almost the perfect hunter!
We are naked. We sweat. We can run at 20+ miles per hour (for up to about a mile - not too bad!) We have binocular vision. We stand upright. We can climb. We can swim. We can communicate - even abstract ideas. We work in groups ... very effectively. And we have a very adaptable brain! We can make weapons: bows, slings, clubs, knives, axes ... we can chuck rocks!
We are very able hunters. that's why we're here!
Sure, we are omnivores in the sense we can consume both. But, I would never make meat the base of my food pyramid.
I don't think we do. With the exception of the peoples of the Arctic regions (for obvious reasons) that is, I submit not the case. Surely, just by looking around the world, there are two staples in the diets of most cultural groups. Grains/Rice. That's why they are called "staple" diets.
As for the choice of my diet, I do so out of ethical considerations -- not one based on what my ancestors did a few few hundred thousand years ago, and definitely not just because agri-corporations have found a way to make meat so cheep that it requires animals to live miserable lives in factory farms and then savagely slaughtered for a society of gluttons.
Good for you! And possibly a reason we should all take more into consideration.

But, as you can see this thread is getting dragged off from Valid Reasons to Hunt whales into a thread debating vegetarianism, and part of that is my fault. I will soon try to start a thread on the topic. Perhaps one already exists and I just have not seen it. I think if we want to continue this topic we should move it.
As for the time being now, I am pretty much involved in the religion discussion/debates.
OH!
... and just who the hell are you!
Are the rumours true? Are you just so damned important that you let everybody know when you've had enough of a thread .. and that's it?
You think we should move this thread? You think we should move this thread?
Your arrogance leaves me completey overawed. I bow to you.
I also will do you the favour of returning to topic.
I'm not in favor of whale hunting. They're too rare now, poor things. And plenty of synthetic products render (sic) their body parts redundant to us.
Plus - I tried the meat once, as a child just after WWII. It's all we could get without using ration coupons.
It tasted bloody awful!
ジョン

[yukio_michael]

But, I would suggest our meat intake in nature as it was when we ventured out of the trees and onto the savannahs was one of opportunity as scavengers.
Popular theory actually suggests that we evolved most directly from fish and then landwalking fish/reptiles--- not directly from primates. I believe that was a different evolutionary path. Though I think we may have diverged from primates. I can't seem to find any complete source for this as the majority of posts when you look up evolution are all flooded by religious people trying to tell you it doesn't exist.

Also, I'm re-iterating what Sensuikan San had mentioned, one of the primary drives towards human dominance over other species was our physiological makeup, a large brain was thought necissary to evolve before bipedal movement--- Young huamns also have better learning an co-operative skills than other animals due to the nature of their brains.

I think it's obvious that humans were extremely well adapted to hunting animals which would have been quite capable of killing them otherwise. I don't think they took up the practice of hunting 'on a whim'...

The fact that you say that you are leaving this argument seems almost like you are giving up simply because nobody can see just how correct you feel your opinions are. Your modus operandi in all of these responses (and similar to many vegans) has been simply to argue moreso--- Part of reasonable discourse is sometimes conceding certain points to the other person, that is unless you simply refuse to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, in which case, you've wasted everyones time because there is absolutely no point in debating someone who will by no means concede that anything they say might possibly be wrong.

[strongvoicesforward]

Ever been up to the Far North SVF? I have. ...
Do them a favor and go up there and show them how to grow vegetables in their backyards!

John, we can`t confirm anything about our private lives here. Why should I believe you have been to the far North? Are you going to supply me with your personal information and resume` and ways for me to confirm it? If not, then why should I take that assertion into account?

What you say is quite true - but is anyone really suggesting a 100% meat diet? I think not in all seriousness.

I think I was referring to a particular "absolute" comment made by someone above, wasn`t I? Please correct me if I am wrong and I will admit it.

That too is just, possibly true ... just. Personally ... I love steak tartare! So sue me!

lol. Just because I am a vegetarian doesn`t mean I don`t love steak. I just reframe from supporting an industry that causes paine and misery even if that means I forego some pleasure to my taste senses. I would hope that people, with our advanced conceptions of ethics, could reason that if survival did not hinge on consuming that which causes misery -- we could be strong enough to decline that activity.

[strongvoicesforward]

Well, bigfellah! That's just brilliant!
I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one! But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!

lol. Well, John -- I have no need for your "fifty bucks" so it will not be missed.

Could you please post all your personal data so we can confirm your assertion that you are a zoologist. Are you standing on your laurels or the strengths of your argument?


Homo sapiens is almost the perfect hunter!


Yes, and we are also the perfect species destroyer and environmental destroyer. Being naturally perfect at something does not mean that the behaviour which is causing misery and harm should be continued. Why do you think is should?

[strongvoicesforward]

... and just who the hell are you!

John, why are you asking when you are not going to post your personal information? Is your question rhettorical and just meant to hang out there with indignation?

Are the rumours true? Are you just so damned important that you let everybody know when you've had enough of a thread .. and that's it?

Believe me, John, I would love to write about many topics here on the forums. But, please grant me the courtesy that I just can`t get all the time I would like to to do so. No reason to feel slighted or ignored. Please, don`t concern yourself with my importance. I assure you I am not important to you or the forum -- as you are not to me.

You think we should move this thread? You think we should move this thread?
Your arrogance leaves me completey overawed. I bow to you.

It was just a suggestion. No need to follow it -- as there is no need to be "overawed" or "bow" to me.

[Sensuikan San]

John, we can`t confirm anything about our private lives here. Why should I believe you have been to the far North? Are you going to supply me with your personal information and resume` and ways for me to confirm it? If not, then why should I take that assertion into account?
Actually we can, if we so wish. It's entirely up to us, if we so choose.
I think you may find a relatively comprehensive summary of myself with just a few mouse clicks on this very forum, and the ability therein to find out even more. I have no secrets, I am quite open ... and although I use my "nom de plume" (as it were), for posting ... my own real name and even a photograph of myself are freely available should you take a few minutes to search.
As for proving to you my "assertion" that I have been to the Far North, on your demand .... that is something I confess to finding mildly offensive. I therefore ask you directly (not rhetorically) ... are you calling me a liar?
As it happens - I was in the position of having to make at least two visits to the James Bay area and to the delightful (?) settlement of Kuujuarapik in the late 1980's on Engineering business. Not the most pleasant trips of my life, but quite enlightening and most interesting. Will that do? Or would you like to do a name trace with Air Canada through Toronto, Montreal, Val D'Or and La Grande , Quebec? I'm afraid I no longer have the ticket stubs.
Conversely ... your own cloak of anonymity is complete! What can I say? By your own rationale ...should I assume that you even exist?
I think I was referring to a particular "absolute" comment made by someone above, wasn`t I? Please correct me if I am wrong and I will admit it.
Yes, you were. I stand corrected.
lol. Just because I am a vegetarian doesn`t mean I don`t love steak.
Then - stop torturing yourself, man!:biggrin:

I just reframe from supporting an industry that causes paine and misery even if that means I forego some pleasure to my taste senses. I would hope that people, with our advanced conceptions of ethics, could reason that if survival did not hinge on consuming that which causes misery -- we could be strong enough to decline that activity.[/FONT]
Then I would give strong consideration towards not wearing imported clothing made by child-labor in several countries of this great world of ours!
lol. Well, John -- I have no need for your "fifty bucks" so it will not be missed.
C'mon! Everybody can use an extra fifty!

Could you please post all your personal data so we can confirm your assertion that you are a zoologist. Are you standing on your laurels or the strengths of your argument?
This is where I can't be sure wether you're playing with my words, or simply misread an admittedly badly constructed sentence.
I believe I wrote: "I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one! But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!"
By this - I should probably have written "If you were a zoologist - you wouldn't be worth fifty bucks a year!" (Based on your analysis of the hunting capabilities of homosapiens.)
As pointed out in my first paragraph ... my background is quite clear, and freely available to all. Any claim that I may have been trying to assert that I am what I am not is simply wrong. And pompous demands for accreditation to suit your whim .... surely, are approaching the preposterous.

... and just who the hell are you!

John, why are you asking when you are not going to post your personal information? Is your question rhettorical and just meant to hang out there with indignation?
That's a good one! Here you have not only assumed that I would not give out personal information - you haven't even bothered to find out that I already have made personal information available!
And no, the question is not rhetorical(sic) ... but again, I admit, badly put. Obviously you don't want us to know who you are, that is quite clear. For me to demand to know who you are, and to ask for your credentials, your resume, etc. etc. would be presumptuous and impertinent of me. I should have asked:
"Who the hell do you think you are?"
And what, in heaven's name, is your real agenda?
Cordially,
ジョン

[sabro]

I eat meat, but mostly poultry and fish. Whales don't seem like a good addition to my diet and they are for the most part endangered.

The evolution argument is intriguing: Primates have canines and almost all primates are omnivores. The proportion of meat to plants is rather small, but we seem to have evolved in a line that will eat just about anything if given the chance. Also the arrangement of our sense organs- binocular vision and bilateral hearing is more common among hunters, not strict herbivores and the adaptation to be able to eat this amount of meat- given the digestive enzymes and micronutrient requirements we now have has to be a recent development. I'm sure this proves nothing, but it is interesting.

Raising animals for meat does consume an inordinate amount of fresh water and agricultural produce. You could reasonably raise the world's food and water supply by cutting back on meat production or eliminating it entirely. (Then the population would swell and we would all die of starvation and disease all over again.)

I would one day like a steak or a burger. Not today. But one day when my stomach isn't busy.

I know who I am. I don't hide- and all my information is there. My screen name is my first name. Foster is my last and I live in Arrowbear, CA. I love visitors. On issues of zoology and evolution I will defer to the actual zoologist as I am merely a high school administrator.

[bossel]

And Eskimos have a lower life expectancy than others on average (I`ll have to find the source and study I had read about their high fat content and the results of that kind of diet).
Sorry, but the current low life expectancy of Eskimos is probably mostly due to civilisation "advances": smoking, drinking, etc. I don't know about their earlier life expectancy, but if it was lower than in industrial nations, that's only to be expected: counts for pretty much all traditional (primitive if you like) societies.
Their traditional nutrition was actually pretty well adapted to their environment (regarding fat & such). What's more, in research done in the 70's it was found that Greenland Eskimos had the best results for elevated blood lipids (don't know if that's the correct translation of German Blutfett). They virtually didn't have any cardiovascular disease.
Bossel, I wouldn`t deny people could live entirely off meat.
Earlier on in this thread you didn't seem quite so convinced.
Perhaps they could but I would much rather go on a vegetarian (not vegan) diet rather than a whole meat diet. The latter would probably be much more dangerous.
Nope, it always depends.
Question -- is the vitamin C damaged during the cooking process of the food to well done level?
Don't know. Eskimos regularly ate (a lot still do so, I think) raw meat. Massai still drink blood mixed with milk.
Just look at us. We are not well designed for catching our own food. We are meat eaters of opportunity -- much like scavengers.
Even if humans started as scavengers, that doesn't say anything about their original meat intake. Mind you, there are species living almost entirely of carrion.
Our canines are nubs.
Never understood this argument. Have you ever looked at Gorilla canines?
Also the arrangement of our sense organs- binocular vision and bilateral hearing is more common among hunters,
Actually, the eyes more probably adapted to life in trees rather than hunting.

[Sensuikan San]

Just one small note to everybody ...
"Eskimo" is not really the correct term for the people under discussion.
While it is in no way as offensive as the "N" word ... we should really be referring to them as "Inuit" or "the Inuit people".
Sorry to be (for once) so politically correct! But I think it's fair to point out.
As you were, dudes, carry on ... !
ジョン

[bossel]

Nah, I prefer Eskimos because I grew up with it. Anyway, Inuit is discriminating.

It implies that they are human & I am not. BTW, I don't see, why Eskimo should be considered inappropriate.

[Sensuikan San]

LOL! Yeah, I know what you mean ...!
ジョン

[Mycernius]

Just to add to the fact that humans are excellent hunters. I think I mentioned it on another thread, but I might as well repeat myself. Humans have one very good hunting technique that is still used by some African tribes, and that is walking its prey to death. Two legs is a more efficient form of locomotion than four legs as it uses less energy. A human can follow large four legged prey in africa and the prey will constantly try to stay ahead. As it is using more energy and the fact it is in a heightened state of anxiety it wears the animal down until it can either go no further, making it easy for a human to kill it with his bear hands, or just drops dead of exhaustion. Our teeth maybe small compared to most carnivores, but they are still able to tear raw meat and our fingers are nimble enough to purchase weak area and rip them apart.

[Aussie_Chick]

If consuming whale meat DOES cause cancer for whatever reason, then so be it. The peoples who eat whale meat deserve it, if not cancer being too lenient a retaliation for wanting to destroy these magnificent creatures. Only the scum of the earth could bring themselves to harm these creatures. Or devour them.

[strongvoicesforward]

Also, I'm re-iterating what Sensuikan San had mentioned, one of the primary drives towards human dominance over other species was our physiological makeup, a large brain was thought necissary to evolve before bipedal movement--- Young huamns also have better learning an co-operative skills than other animals due to the nature of their brains.
I think it's obvious that humans were extremely well adapted to hunting animals which would have been quite capable of killing them otherwise. I don't think they took up the practice of hunting 'on a whim'...

YM, I don`t think I ever said that humans took up hunting on a "whim," did I? I merely made some observations, which I stated not as fact but only as something on the lines of conjecture, that perhaps our optimal diet was not, or if it had become, may be now moving away from an optimal diet with meat. I don`t think I had made any absolute statements of declaration, did I?

Obviously I was leaving room open for what many think on the topic.

But, to continue with your observation I can add: Humans are prone to warring amongst themselves on small and large scale, capable of torturing for pleasure, using rape to humiliate, murder, child molestation to satisfy perverted urges, exterminating species, fauna due to irrational fear which conjure up threats that do not exist etc... all due to some "nature of their brains." I think it`s obvious that humans were and are adopted to murdering, warrring and destroying another of their brother -- human or non-human, where a real threat doesn`t exist, and persists in doing so despite the large brain we have that should lead us to more appropriate behaviour of treating one another and all those on Earth. Obviously something is wrong with our brains as a whole for we have not found a way to control that which highlights our depravity. I don`t think we "took up the practice of" depravity "on a whim."

The strange thing is that we have a mind capable of advanced reasoning and one which has discovered the concepts of compassion, empathy, and mercy which can be extended across barrier lines, unlike most of the animal world, but we don`t use it at a time in our history where it could eliminate the most depraved acts amonst us. You seem to be championing meat eating because it is natural, well, why not champion all the other natural depraved things that seem to mark our species? Or, are you just picking and choosing?

What is natural as some kind of inherant good should not be what we focus on, because that will for a long time be a natural part of us. What is capable to suppress the bad of natural is what is more noble -- for that will compliment the natural good we have.

The fact that you say that you are leaving this argument seems almost like you are giving up simply because nobody can see just how correct you feel your opinions are.

Did I say I was leaving the argument or just suggesting it be created anew in a different thread? I thought I had clearly stated the latter and just said that at the moment I was more deeply engaged in the religion thread. That`s all. Don`t worry. I will make myelf available for discussion with you. Trust me, you haven`t said anything to make me fear you as a debate opponent.

Your modus operandi in all of these responses (and similar to many vegans) has been simply to argue moreso---

What does that mean? Of course I argue my point of view. Do you want me to just put forth week-kneed assertions and then dither and concede? If you argue effectively then you may get me to cede a point or two. I am not against changing my mind on topics. I wasn`t born a vegetarian. I was argued into it, and I guess therefore I could be argued out of it. I bent on the issue but as of yet, nothing has bent me back. Nevertheless, though, one reason I engage in debate is to learn different perspectives.

Part of reasonable discourse is sometimes conceding certain points to the other person,

Yes, if you convince. No one cedes just for the sake of ceding. You haven`t convinced me of anything yet. Are you unreasonable because you haven`t ceded to my point of yet? According to your statement above it sounds like that conclusion could be drawn. I wouldn`t come to that conclusion. I would just assume I haven`t done a good enough job in convincing you to succeed. Why would you think otherwise or not reciprocate that thought or courtesy?

...that is unless you simply refuse to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, in which case, you've wasted everyones time because there is absolutely no point in debating someone who will by no means concede that anything they say might possibly be wrong.

Well, YM, then you have wasted my time because you have refused to admit you may be wrong on any of your points, and you`ve wasted everyone`s time. Am I right in using your logic thrown back at you? You tell me why you are exempt from it.

Now, go back and look at some of my posts in this thread, specifically in the last few days when the thread started picking up again, and I am pretty sure you will see me qualify my remarks in terms that are not absolute. Doing so let`s people see one is leaving room open for the possibillity that they may be wrong. So, what are you talking about in all this "ceding" stuff and "wasting" time? Where are your justifications for just about everything you said? Be specific.

[strongvoicesforward]

As for proving to you my "assertion" that I have been to the Far North, on your demand .... that is something I confess to finding mildly offensive. I therefore ask you directly (not rhetorically) ... are you calling me a liar?

No, John. I am not calling you a liar. I am saying there is really no credible way for me to confirm your past or present status. I could probably spend some time in tracking down your info -- or you even sending an extensive bio to me, but that could still be misleading and not mean your experiences or the personal educational/professional laurals you seem to refer to to bolster your argument are worthy to give in to as a trump card. Sure, you may be a zoologist at some place, but how would I know you are a competent one? There are a lot of people in high positions that just seem incompetent and misleading. Just look at George Bush.

Now, I sense you are going to take the above as a personal attack on you because I bring up the word "competent." However, please don`t. It is only used illustratively and I concede you may be the greatest zoologist in the world -- however, I have no way to confirm anything that would satisfy fully my questions on that point.

That is why I am saying it is kind of not good form to bring up one`s laurals or professional affiliation as a point of personal observation in a form like this. If we were on Meet the Press and all our bio info was out there, then "yes," the audience listening could be swayed by some points in our bio as a reason to take the person`s words more so over another.

Now, I know you are going to disagree, and well, if you want to just open all your posts with "Since I am a zoologist...." then I can`t stop you. Do as you wish. But, if you are a zoologist of good repute with a lot of knowledge, then you surely have data that can be divorced from yourself to put forth, don`t you?

[strongvoicesforward]

Conversely ... your own cloak of anonymity is complete! What can I say? By your own rationale ...should I assume that you even exist?

lol. Yes, I am anonymous and will stay so. Having ired some religious people on the forum, I would hate to put their fervor to the test and find out I have been targeted by some strange forum stalker and find my home targeted like an abortion clinic. They may get two birds with one stone. <wink wink>

No, I may not exist. As you may not either. We could all be just existing from some complex chemical compounds causing an illusion. Perhaps I am a bot stuck in the cybor world divorced from human form.

If you want to assume I don`t exist, please give me no thought and just ignore me. I won`t deny you that choice. Do as you will.

[strongvoicesforward]

Quote:
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
lol. Just because I am a vegetarian doesn`t mean I don`t love steak.

Sansuikan-san: Then - stop torturing yourself, man!

lol.

As a human I have the ability to control my urges for pleasure. There are some things I would really love to do to taxi drivers and tax collectors and it would probably give me some kind of pleasure or satisfaction -- but, I suppress those actions which give me some mental anguish -- self torture -- if you will, man. ;-)

[strongvoicesforward]

Then I would give strong consideration towards not wearing imported clothing made by child-labor in several countries of this great world of ours!

What makes you think I don`t already? Is your advice based on presumption?

[sabro]

I went to my favorite Japanese restaurant last night (which does not have whale on the menu) and saw that they had steak... and I wanted to order it... but I stuck with the raw fish. I think long periods of forced vegetarianism and the avoidance of red meat due to medical reasons has left me unable to digest beef and unwilling to experiment.

What do you think of the native Inuit whale hunt that takes place once a year?

[strongvoicesforward]

What do you think of the native Inuit whale hunt that takes place once a year?

Sabro, I was going to make a separate thread for that when I got more time.

Do you think we should, or just keep it in here?

You are referring to the Makaw, aren`t you? It is a very interesting issue.

[sabro]

Makaw- I think that is correct- and you are the second person with a tripple post today. I'm not certain why, but I think there is a technical glitch.

As long as it doesn't become the central issues of discussion and just a brief digression, we can keep it here. I don't have a strong opinion and I'm not certain that anyone else does.

I would not object to it, although I don't know enough specifics- It seems like an effort to preserve a culture and tradition that doesn't really have the capacity to inflict serious damage on the whale population. Certainly from a strict survival point it is unnecessary, but for the survival of elements of this culture, they may deem it a necessity.

[sabro]

I thought this was interesting: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/grateful-whale.htm
A whale that was freed from some gear came back to "thank" each of the rescuers. We don't know exactly what the behavior was actually about, but it is definitely the sign of an intelligent animal.

[yukio_michael]

http://home.cfl.rr.com/discostud/food_chain.jpg
If consuming whale meat DOES cause cancer for whatever reason, then so be it. The peoples who eat whale meat deserve it, if not cancer being too lenient a retaliation for wanting to destroy these magnificent creatures. Only the scum of the earth could bring themselves to harm these creatures. Or devour them.So, I suppose by your logic someone who would actually wish death upon someone via cancer is actually more moralistically sound than someone who eats meat? Maybe we should just indiscriminately round people up and torture them at black sites until they learn the errors of their dietary ways.

If there were such a thing as a 'food nazi', id say this would fit that description.

[Aussie_Chick]

Heh no if i had my way whales would be free of danger and being eaten by barbaric people with the knowledge of a caveman. Get with the times. Not everything that lives has to be eaten.

[strongvoicesforward]

C'mon! Everybody can use an extra fifty!

What are you talking about? You said you wouldn`t give it to me. But, if you did, I`d give it to ALF so they could do a number on a moored whaling ship they caught off guard.**

btw, they (ALF) have sunk whaling ships in the past.

Har har! Go ye southern priates of the jolly band of the Sea Shepherd aboard the Farley Mowat. Shiver me timbers and full ramming speed ahead!



**See, as a zoologist -- your contribution can help in more than one way besides just your knowledge.

[strongvoicesforward]

This is where I can't be sure wether you're playing with my words, or simply misread an admittedly badly constructed sentence.

The latter.

I would think that highly competent zoologists well respected in their fields would need good writing skills in order to get published in well respected journals read by their peers.

Don`t worry, John. I haven`t assumed anything by your admission. I know we all type quickly here on the forum and all mistakes, spelling, grammatical, or on clarity have nothing to do with how we would write something for peers in our profession to read and scrutinize. Just giving you some wry humor.

I believe I wrote: "I have to give it to you - you're a campaigner! And a good one!

Thank you. And, I will try to get even better.

But ... as a zoologist ..... I wouldn't give you fifty bucks a year!"
By this - I should probably have written "If you were a zoologist - you wouldn't be worth fifty bucks a year!" (Based on your analysis of the hunting capabilities of homosapiens.)

Yes. That is much bettter and keeps unverrifiable assertions and our laurals out of the picture.

Ok, John -- I quite concede we are excellent hunters based on our ability to cooperate via communication skills and paraphanalia we can created to aid us. No argument there. What spurred those, however, I think is up for debate.

Did we just start communicating and making things and then decided to use those on game? Or, is it likely or possible, that a shortage in vegetation, due to such things as drought or other occurrance force us to supplement our food by turning towards meat consumption? Could it be that our desperation in obtaining this other food source prompted communication and creativity in making paraphanalia to help us in our physical compartment that surely lacked in their capability alone to bring down a gazelle or zebra or what not?

It is interesting to note, that chimpanzees do hunt other primates. But, it is also interesting to note that often that hunting of other primates by chimpanzees is done when their fruit and other vegetation becomes scarce during seasonal changes or droughts. That is pointing at a choice to deviate out of necessity -- not out of just wanting meat. Perhaps humans when they had deviated over a period of years, just never switched back.

Please note, I have qualified all my answers above with words such as "probably, maybe, perhaps, etc..." I am not presuming to know for certain -- and many zoologists and scientists to my knowledge do not agree wholley on some of the different thoughts of the matter out there, right?

[strongvoicesforward]

As pointed out in my first paragraph ... my background is quite clear, and freely available to all. Any claim that I may have been trying to assert that I am what I am not is simply wrong. And pompous demands for accreditation to suit your whim .... surely, are approaching the preposterous.

Why are they pompous if you bring them into the discussion?

I didn`t claim you were asserting something you were not. I merely said there was no way to verify your assertion. Even if we could verify your assertion that you have all the accredidation necessary for being a zoologist, to verify you were a competent one well caught up on recent research and well respected in your field would be even harder. It would all be time consuming.

Better to just put forth reasoned arguments with referenceable data -- without bringing the personal into it.

This is not a harsh attack on you, John. It is just a generic response to someone, anyone, saying something like, "As a doctor, as an astorphysicist, as a blah blah blah...