Re: When meat is not 'murder'

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Arri London <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Meat from a petri dish?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1548451,00.html

Sounds fascinating. :-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

Solyent Red?

This is just another example of man's silly attempt at (poorly)
re-inventing natures' wheel.

Look, the good lord (or mother nature, or evolution, or fate, you pick
your philosophy) placed us on this world of abundance so that we could
partake in that very abundance and be healthy and hearty doing so. And
that, as far as the human species go, most definitely includes eating
meat which involves raising or hunting, butchering and eating animals.
We all need to simply accept that reality and deal with it.

Just think of those luscious chicken wings or those baby back ribs
swimming in BBQ sauce. We are meat eaters.

TC

Quoted message said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Arri London <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Meat from a petri dish?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1548451,00.html

Sounds fascinating. :-)
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack
Nicholson

Solyent Red?

This is just another example of man's silly attempt at (poorly)
re-inventing natures' wheel.

Look, the good lord (or mother nature, or evolution, or fate, you pick
your philosophy) placed us on this world of abundance so that we could
partake in that very abundance and be healthy and hearty doing so. And

Whether or not "fate" permits something to happen has nothing to do with
morality or justice. Fate is not in any way directed by such notions.

Quoted message said:

that, as far as the human species go, most definitely includes eating
meat which involves raising or hunting, butchering and eating animals.
We all need to simply accept that reality and deal with it.

Those of us who walk on two legs are concerned not only with emulating what
others are doing, but also with questions of morality and justice.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

Arri London <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Meat from a petri dish?
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1548451,00.html

Sounds fascinating. :-)
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack
Nicholson

Solyent Red?

This is just another example of man's silly attempt at (poorly)
re-inventing natures' wheel.

Look, the good lord (or mother nature, or evolution, or fate, you pick
your philosophy) placed us on this world of abundance so that we could
partake in that very abundance and be healthy and hearty doing so. And

Whether or not "fate" permits something to happen has nothing to do with
morality or justice. Fate is not in any way directed by such notions.

Quoted message said:

that, as far as the human species go, most definitely includes eating
meat which involves raising or hunting, butchering and eating animals.
We all need to simply accept that reality and deal with it.

Those of us who walk on two legs are concerned not only with emulating what
others are doing, but also with questions of morality and justice.

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

JMW said:

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Arri London <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Meat from a petri dish?
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1548451,00.html

Sounds fascinating. :-)
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack
Nicholson

Solyent Red?

This is just another example of man's silly attempt at (poorly)
re-inventing natures' wheel.

Look, the good lord (or mother nature, or evolution, or fate, you pick
your philosophy) placed us on this world of abundance so that we could
partake in that very abundance and be healthy and hearty doing so. And

Whether or not "fate" permits something to happen has nothing to do with
morality or justice. Fate is not in any way directed by such notions.

Morality or justice has nothing to do with the survival of a species by
feeding directly off another species. That is the reality of this world
and our position within the biological matrix.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that, as far as the human species go, most definitely includes eating
meat which involves raising or hunting, butchering and eating animals.
We all need to simply accept that reality and deal with it.

Those of us who walk on two legs are concerned not only with emulating what
others are doing, but also with questions of morality and justice.

We are not emulating anyone or anything. That is the nature of our
dependence on and survival in the natural world. Morality and justice
aren't even on the table when it comes to the basic survival and the
health of our progeny, which depend directly on a primarily
animal-based diet. Morality and justice do not apply between
inter-species survival.

When a lion, a bear or maggots attacks and/or consumes a human, we
cannot infer any morality or justice to the act because they are simply
following natures plan of survival therefore how can we infer any
morality or justice to a human who raises or hunts, kills and consumes
a pig, deer, chicken or other species of animal. We are simply
following natures plan. (or the evolutionary plan, or god's plan, again
pick your own philosophy)

TC

Quoted message said:

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Arri London <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Meat from a petri dish?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,,1548451,00.html

Sounds fascinating. :-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack
Nicholson

Solyent Red?

This is just another example of man's silly attempt at (poorly)
re-inventing natures' wheel.

Look, the good lord (or mother nature, or evolution, or fate, you pick
your philosophy) placed us on this world of abundance so that we could
partake in that very abundance and be healthy and hearty doing so. And
that, as far as the human species go, most definitely includes eating
meat which involves raising or hunting, butchering and eating animals.
We all need to simply accept that reality and deal with it.

Just think of those luscious chicken wings or those baby back ribs
swimming in BBQ sauce. We are meat eaters.

TC

Rib eye... ;-d

Half raw in the middle, well seared on the outside.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

Preacher said:

JMW said:

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

How does that fit in this discussion? Comparing either of these
scenarios to eating meat makes no sense whatsoever. Apple and rocks.
Not even apples and oranges. That is completely nonsensical. Irrelevant
and utterly foolish.

TC

Quoted message said:

Morality or justice has nothing to do with the survival of a species by
feeding directly off another species.

We don't need to eat meat to survive, individually or as a species.

Quoted message said:

We are not emulating anyone or anything. That is the nature of our
dependence on and survival in the natural world. Morality and justice
aren't even on the table when it comes to the basic survival and the
health of our progeny, which depend directly on a primarily
animal-based diet.

That's simply incorrect.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Quoted message said:

Preacher said:

JMW said:

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

How does that fit in this discussion? Comparing either of these
scenarios to eating meat makes no sense whatsoever. Apple and rocks.
Not even apples and oranges. That is completely nonsensical. Irrelevant
and utterly foolish.

It fits into the discussion because JMW has declared morality and
justice absolutely relative. I disagreed.

Fwiw, no one compared either of those scenarios to eating meat. Someone
compared eating meat to murder - but not me.

(Preacher) said:

JMW said:

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

You're the one who visualized it. You tell me.

Preacher said:

JMW said:

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

Or feeding a child a nutrient deficient and dangerous vegan diet that
will stunt and skew their mental and physical growth for the rest of
their natural lives.

TC

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

Quoted message said:

Preacher said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
> always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

How does that fit in this discussion? Comparing either of these
scenarios to eating meat makes no sense whatsoever. Apple and rocks.
Not even apples and oranges. That is completely nonsensical. Irrelevant
and utterly foolish.

It fits into the discussion because JMW has declared morality and
justice absolutely relative. I disagreed.

Fwiw, no one compared either of those scenarios to eating meat. Someone
compared eating meat to murder - but not me.

You'd have to track it back to where I originally re-posted it. ;-)
I just copied the original thread title.

FWIW, I'm a dedicated carnivoir and have even raised and processed
(murdered) my own meat on occasion......
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

JMW said:

(Preacher) said:

JMW said:

Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

You're the one who visualized it. You tell me.

No, I can't imagine any circumstances under which such behavior would be
moral or just. Which indicates to me that there are some absolutes -
morality and justice are not purely relative.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

Morality or justice has nothing to do with the survival of a species by
feeding directly off another species.

We don't need to eat meat to survive, individually or as a species.

We need meat to attain and maintain optimum health and that affects our
ability to survive as a species. Eating an inferior grain-based diet is
leading us to massive increases in chronic diseases like heart disease,
diabetes, obesity, etc. and puts us at risk against infectious
diseases. And do not underestimate how that can and will affect the
very survival of our species. A species weakened by poor diet can be
wiped out by infectious disease. The Plague wiped out fully one third
of the population of Europe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We are not emulating anyone or anything. That is the nature of our
dependence on and survival in the natural world. Morality and justice
aren't even on the table when it comes to the basic survival and the
health of our progeny, which depend directly on a primarily
animal-based diet.

That's simply incorrect.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Incorrect based on what? Your love of furry little animals?

TC

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

JMW said:

(Preacher) said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
> always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

You're the one who visualized it. You tell me.

No, I can't imagine any circumstances under which such behavior would be
moral or just. Which indicates to me that there are some absolutes -
morality and justice are not purely relative.

There are cultural precedents.

Infibulation of pubescent girl children comes to mind...

_I_ think it's sick and immoral, (and I consider it torture and
mutilation) but it's not only acceptable to the Somali culture, it's
considered immoral to NOT do it.

But, as mentioned in another post, this has diddly squat to do with
growing meat in a petri dish!

I thought the concept was rather interesting from a global economic
point of view! Inventory that eats grain and has to be cleaned up after
is a lot of work and takes up a lot of space, and requires more fertile
ground that may not exsist in some desert type areas of the world.

Meat that could be grown in giant media vats could probably provide the
protein needs of many for a far lower economic and ecologic impact!

I, for one, am entertained by thread drift, but the original topic is
fascinating enough to follow up on IMHO! There are more than just
"moral" issues at stake.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

"If you don't rape little Polly, aged six, and torture little Billy,
age 6 months, I'll kill her, him, you, your family and both of their
families as well."

If the threats are credible, the acts are certainly within the realm of
what is moral and just.

Hollywood, Recipient, Dean's Award for Business Ethics, 2005, Olin
School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis

PS- I shudder to think of such a circumstance, but it could happen.

Preacher said:

JMW said:

(Preacher) said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Morality and justice are relative to circumstances. Always have been;
> always will be. There are no absolutes.

Except that one, apparently.

So, for instance, I guess you can describe a real-life circumstance in
which raping a six year old child or torturing a baby would be just or
moral?

You're the one who visualized it. You tell me.

No, I can't imagine any circumstances under which such behavior would be
moral or just. Which indicates to me that there are some absolutes -
morality and justice are not purely relative.

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

Morality or justice has nothing to do with the survival of a species by
feeding directly off another species.

We don't need to eat meat to survive, individually or as a species.

We need meat to attain and maintain optimum health and that affects our
ability to survive as a species. Eating an inferior grain-based diet is
leading us to massive increases in chronic diseases like heart disease,
diabetes, obesity, etc. and puts us at risk against infectious
diseases.

So the obesity epidemic is a result of a massive increase in vegetarianism ?

You're joking, right ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Quoted message said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-17, [email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> Morality or justice has nothing to do with the survival of a species by
> feeding directly off another species.

We don't need to eat meat to survive, individually or as a species.

We need meat to attain and maintain optimum health and that affects our
ability to survive as a species. Eating an inferior grain-based diet is
leading us to massive increases in chronic diseases like heart disease,
diabetes, obesity, etc. and puts us at risk against infectious
diseases.

So the obesity epidemic is a result of a massive increase in vegetarianism ?

You're joking, right ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

No obesity is a result of a grain-based diet, especially refined grains
like white flour, white bread and high fructise corn syrup used in soft
drinks.

You're illiterate, right? Learn to read.

TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So the obesity epidemic is a result of a massive increase in vegetarianism ?

You're joking, right ?

No obesity is a result of a grain-based diet, especially refined grains
like white flour, white bread and high fructise corn syrup used in soft
drinks.

You're illiterate, right? Learn to read.

I'm quite capable of reading, I'm just having a hard time following your logic.

The problem is that this so-called "grain based diet" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
to do with vegetarianism. As you have correctly observed, you can consume
this "grain based diet" without being vegetarian. Conversely, as a vegetarian,
I can assure you that one doesn't need to consume such a diet to become
vegetarian.

In other words, your "point" is a complete non-sequitur, and you have not
demonstrated that eating meat is in any way necessary for the survival of humans
as individuals or as a species.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/