Where is gender role relevent to this conversation? Please, explain. I find cheap plays of prejudice cards to be extremely irritating.

Moral evolution is an interesting point of view. The kicker is, morals evolve through conscious decisions that often have nothing to do with real world pressures or needs. Morals can be founded on pure delusional basis, rather than real world functionality. I could go on a bit on specifics, but the moderators tend to frown on my habit of kiboshing religions.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

Because simply the human race is made of half women and half men. And all our genes except those on Y chromosomes are in our common genes pool. So the human race has been tailored also by gathering and not only by hunting and meat eating. IMO this a reality and not a prejudice.

Exactly. It has been tailored by the consumption of both meat and veggies. Not either one alone. I don't see Doodler claiming anywhere that they human race has in the past eaten exclusively meat, just that they have not had a completely meat-free diet.

Perhaps a moral concern, but not directly applicable. You spoke to the economic viability of selling them for dog food. The act of selling for dog food does not require killing them, merely waiting till they're dead. Admittedly, giving an old cow that can't produce milk a long, healthy retirement does seem somewhat uneconomical. Still, that does not invalidate the logic of my point.


I have special dietary choices, too, and I DEMAND special treatment as well. NO MUSHROOMS! No coconut. Steaks must be well done. (That means cooked through, no pink!)

The hard part is catering to other people's dietary choices. Mostly because it's always a hassle to make decisions on how to fix things and even what to fix, and that is more difficult if their list is long or if you don't know exactly what's on their list.

Now you're arguing from the farmer's economic concerns, not the happiness of the cow's life. Your original comment from "The Mind of The Cow" was "Modern Cows are Amoung The Happiest Animals in The World". My responses were aimed at cow happiness, not farmer wallets.

I thought I already addressed this?

BIOLOGY -- Do animals feel pain?

It's the inherent imbalance of the "moral" position.

Yes, morals can be founded on delusion. They also can be founded on rational consideration of the results. I believe galacsci was speaking of where they come from, not how they have been formulated.

Yes Irishman , well done, it was exactly my thinking.

I wasn't denying their part as an element of human evolution. I was referring to the fact that, like physical traits, societal traits can be both beneficial and harmful. The fact that they are the result of a form of evolution fairly unique to humans does not make them immediately sacrosanct.

I see those morals founded upon delusions in the same light that I see a genetic birth defect. Flaws in the human condition against which efforts to should be made to see to their removal (before anyone in my fan club goes there, remove the flaws, not the flawed individuals).

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

Well... saying that a vegetarian has to consider your viewpoint just as valid as his own is saying that a vegetarian has to recognize that there's no reason to not eat meat. But by being a vegetarian, he already sees meat eating as "wrong" for some reason. I just also think that one can be a rational meat-eater all they want to be, and rationalize it; but I may not agree with him nonetheless.

And I disagree that it's irrational. In fact, when I look at history, many rational people see good points behind vegetarianism... including Einstein.

So yeah, aggressively defend it all you want, but I don't agree with you that being vegetarian is "irrational". However, the argument you made that vegetarians are hypocritical by eating vegetables while not eating meat IS irrational.

And your part here...

Well, I feel the same way about irrational, illogical arguments. I think that they should be removed too. But yet, I keep seeing them pop up, over and over again, over any topic...

Sometimes *why* or *how* you defend something is about just as important as *what* you're actually defending, even if you come to a "correct" conclusion (though by who's definition of "correct" is up to debate). For instance: "God came to me in a dream and told me that Big Bang was a correct theory. Therefore, Big Bang is a correct theory." You wouldn't want someone touting that out too often, would you? Ilya's response reminds me of the argument, "If you believe in Evolution, you support Social Darwinism, and therefore you support Hitler." -- He's saying, "If you support vegetarianism, you support equal rights for animals, and thus you're also supporting the apocalypse." Which is... uhm... yeah.

Oh, and I wanted to address something to good ol' Zaphod: Earlier before, Zaphod asked, "what's wrong with hedonism?" Well, let me give the definition of hedonism...

Well, if you want to be a hedonist, that's fine. But I think that saving a life is greater than making out in a bathhouse, so I follow different viewpoints. Further, saying that something is justifiable because it brings about feelings of pleasure, even if one perceives harm being done to humans or animals, is a justification of bringing about suffering in the name of personal pleasure, which is an argument that I personally feel doesn't stand up in any philosophical or moral debate.

However, it doesn't matter. Advocates of hedonism will one day embrace technology that will allow them to be stored inside of boxes that induce their bodies with physical and mental pleasure, and thus remove them from society but give them their greatest dream.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Ah yes, the "its not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game" arguement.

Anyway, you've tapped a good point. "Correct" and "right" are not synonymous. A vegetarian diet is no more or less "correct" for human survival than an omnivorous one. Both get the job done. On that, given the nature of this forum, the facts state that neither holds any particular sway over the other.

Whether its "right" or "wrong" is philosophical, nothing that can be applied to rational, quantitative terms. Totally a matter of personal preference. Might as well chuck that particular debate in the same bin as religion and politics. They think I'm wrong, and I think their nuts, and the fact is, we sit there glaring at each other and nothing gets accomplished because there's quite simply nothing to accomplish. They've made their choice, I've made mine, and most discussions on the matter will end up hostile and divisive when it steps outside of the quantitative data.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

I wonder, if animals tasted much much better if they were really tortured before death, what percentage of people would opt for this type of meat.

__________________
__O_/
...|
../ \

Never had foie gras, but I'll vouch for veal over beef.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

well, I did eat cheese for quite a while, so I guess I can't say I'm blameless.

__________________
__O_/
...|
../ \

Huh?

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

well, veal comes from unwanted calves which are the product of artificial insemination that is done to increase milk production. Or so I gather, which is one of the reasons why vegans don't eat dairy.

__________________
__O_/
...|
../ \

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veal#Ve..._culinary_uses

Bolding mine. This would appear to be the form of veal production raising the ire of most. They fall into the category that are kept in crates. That said, doesn't appear to be the only way to skin a calf.

Option #1 would appear to be the most appetizing method around. The slaughter really isn't an issue, its the keeping.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

Not so sure , when you like meat , you eat a lot of it. Twenty five years ago it was what i did , and got gout attack. One foot then the other .It was very painfull ,i almost could not walk. So i changed my ways and i am in good health now.

And there is also the matter of parasitism and the Mad Cow desease. And mad deers and .... What about ALZHEIMER ?

Bold assumption.

And in the category, "How about a little fire, scarecrow?"

Yeah, and what was the source of the recent E. Coli outbreak?

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.