Why sharks are imporant

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Aygor » Tue May 13, 2014 7:21 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:First of all I'm not sure for the entire world it is unnecessary but we'll move along from that

In the civilized part of the world we luckily are a part of it is.
There is no point in talking about places and people which for whatever reason have no choice.

Shikanosuke wrote:Because something isn't necessary doesn't mean it's inherently cruel, vile, or shouldn't be done. I may not have to eat meat to survive, but I'm still an omnivore regardless. It's built into us. There is no reason to deny oneself an efficient, strong, and convenient diet.

Taking the life of a sentient being is inherently cruel. Taking it unnecessarily makes it, other than cruel, flagitious.
What we can do has nothing to do with what we should or shouldn't do (not suggesting we shouldn't eat animals).
We are omnivore because for millions of years our ancestors were forced to grab anything they stumbled upon to survive, that isn't the case for us.

Shikanosuke wrote:Which i would wager summarizes 90-98% of the world's population. Most people have a fundamental lack of education about food and nutrient intake. The amount of diets and misinformation out there is staggering and the research and science changes daily.

Personally I don't think that in the internet era misinformation is excusable, we literally are a keybord away from almost all it is possible to know.
Science doesn't change daily, it adds up daily: "Chocolate is good" titles weekly switching with "Chocolate is bad" titles are bad journalism.

Shikanosuke wrote:At most you avoid a few non certain health links to health problems by avoiding eating meat. I still agree with you in the abstract that being a non meat eater and being healthy are possible. I suggest to you that largely isn't how it works out a good portion of the time.

Risks are certain, risked ailments are non certain. It doesn't work when someone eats improperly, fault is on that someone and not on the lack of meat.
分久必合,合久必分
Ἀτύφως μὲν λαβεῖν, εὐλύτως δὲ ἀφεῖναι
User avatar
Aygor
Langzhong
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue May 13, 2014 7:41 pm

Aygor wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:First of all I'm not sure for the entire world it is unnecessary but we'll move along from that

In the civilized part of the world we luckily are a part of it is.
There is no point in talking about places and people which for whatever reason have no choice.


If you believe this to be entirely true I'd suggest you haven't been to some rural places in the civilized world where hunting still provides food and commercial quantities which cost small amounts in normal areas cost treble. But this isn't the norm, so you're right.

Taking the life of a sentient being is inherently cruel. Taking it unnecessarily makes it, other than cruel, flagitious.


Cruel implies to not care that you're not taking a life or don't respect the importance of the action. It's quite possible to acknowledge the connection between your meat and the life that was taken. And flagitious is a unnecessary word as well. It's heinous and criminal to take the life of livestock that you eat ? Please.

We are omnivore because for millions of years our ancestors were forced to grab anything they stumbled upon to survive, it is not the case for us.


It is. And our bodies still require the same nutrients and we're still top of the food chain

Personally I don't think that in the internet era misinformation is excusable, we literally are a keybord away from almost all it is possible to know.


Personally I agree with you. But that doesn't change the reality that most people, even if they have Internet access, lack the fundamental skills to filter through good and bad information and understand it.


Science doesn't change daily, it adds up daily: "Chocolate is good" titles weekly switching with "Chocolate is bad" titles are bad journalism.


Agreed. But it amounts to the same when the information is disseminated to the public.

Risks are certain, risked ailments are non certain. It doesn't work when someone eats improperly, fault is on that someone and not on the lack of meat.


That's fine. And I think most of us are willing to take the limited risks. But you're right about the fault. But in thinking of the general welfare, if it's more than likely that an individual is going to adopt a non healthy non meat diet (with little benefit) We likely aren't going to advise that.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Aygor » Tue May 13, 2014 9:08 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:Cruel implies to not care that you're not taking a life or don't respect the importance of the action. It's quite possible to acknowledge the connection between your meat and the life that was taken. And flagitious is a unnecessary word as well. It's heinous and criminal to take the life of livestock that you eat ? Please.

Cruel as life is everything any being has regardless of respect, flagitous as this deletion of existance serves no necessity, heinous as livestock is regarded as a meat crop rather than as the sentient, emotional, perceptive individual it is, not criminal.

Shikanosuke wrote:And our bodies still require the same nutrients and we're still top of the food chain

The same nutrients cows, wolves, mais, bacteria need, with little to no variation.
We are omnivorous as we were at the bottom until, biologically speaking, yesterday.
分久必合,合久必分
Ἀτύφως μὲν λαβεῖν, εὐλύτως δὲ ἀφεῖναι
User avatar
Aygor
Langzhong
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue May 13, 2014 10:26 pm

Aygor wrote:Cruel as life is everything any being has regardless of respect,


I don't know what this sentence means. But cruel means to inflict pain or suffering on another. As the intention with hunting and raising livestock is not to do this, but to provide sustenance it is not cruel. I could concede there can be cruel ways in which to do this though. But that is another debate.

flagitous as this deletion of existance serves no necessity,


It did, it served to build and provide for us. It may not be a necessity theoretically anymore, but that doesn't mean the deletion of live doesn't serve a purpose. Feeding one's self is not flagitious.

heinous as livestock is regarded as a meat crop rather than as the sentient, emotional, perceptive individual it is,


Heinous merely is a synonym for flatigious. I think this doesn't have to be the way you say it is. This is mostly due to mass production, not of a failing of the inherent nature of predator and prey or farmer and livestock. It's entirely possible to treat livestock as sentient, emotion, and perceptive creatures and still slaughter them for consumption. I think alot of farmers (i know quite a few) would take slight offense that they treat their livestock as trash.

The same nutrients cows, wolves, mais, bacteria need, with little to no variation.
We are omnivorous as we were at the bottom until, biologically speaking, yesterday.


And we'll remain at the top, and we'll still require the same nutrients. The idea that now we're there we're somehow morally obligated to break from the chain of a steady and healthy train of nutrients to appease some perceived injustice doesn't make much sense.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Jordan » Wed May 14, 2014 6:05 am

I agree with your sentiments on a balanced diet, and I by no means am attacking your pescretarian diet, but just for clarification's sake fish is meat. I don't think we should draw a distinction between the two unless we're merely speaking fattier meats benefits vs. Leaner meats benefits. Otherwise it brings in other issues not related to health.


I agree with you that fish is a type of meat. I draw a distinction between the two regardless because the distinction matters to me personally. If I say that I don't eat meat but I do eat fish, it is comprehensible to people what my diet is. I could have just said I was a pescetarian I guess but not all people are familiar with the term.

The distinction is also important to me because I think it shows that you don't need to eat all types of meat to have a balanced diet. I don't think there's a particular need to eat beef in a diet for example. You can eat leaner meats and I think that is healthy. Maybe it is even healthier.
User avatar
Jordan
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 5884
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:52 am

Re: R: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Aygor » Wed May 14, 2014 8:52 am

Shikanosuke wrote:I don't know what this sentence means. But cruel means to inflict pain or suffering on another.
It means that as existance is everything depriving a sentient being of it is a cruel act which also comes through pain and suffering.
I don't mean cruel with a moral connotation, it probably isn't the most correct word.

Shikanosuke wrote: It did, it served to build and provide for us. It may not be a necessity theoretically anymore, but that doesn't mean the deletion of live doesn't serve a purpose.

It did, it isn't necessary anymore, serving that purpose this way or not doing so is merely a choice.

Shikanosuke wrote: And we'll remain at the top, and we'll still require the same nutrients.

How do you know?
If anything extintion rates suggests that the current biodiversity is collapsing, if we'll be there afterwards there is no telling which place we'll occupy in the food chain.

Shikanosuke wrote: The idea that now we're there we're somehow morally obligated to break from the chain of a steady and healthy train of nutrients to appease some perceived injustice doesn't make much sense.

It isn't what I said.
I said that now we have the opportunity to choose and that one choice spares unnecessary harm to animals, that isn't a direct consequence of our current spot in the food chain.
分久必合,合久必分
Ἀτύφως μὲν λαβεῖν, εὐλύτως δὲ ἀφεῖναι
User avatar
Aygor
Langzhong
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed May 14, 2014 12:30 pm

Aygor wrote:It means that as existance is everything depriving a sentient being of it is a cruel act which also comes through pain and suffering.
I don't mean cruel with a moral connotation, it probably isn't the most correct word.


Perhaps. Because pain and suffering shouldn't be In the equation at all. Pain and suffering do not benefit us at all In obtaining meat.

It did, it isn't necessary anymore, serving that purpose this way or not doing so is merely a choice.


Indeed. One which should carry no negative stigma. Eating meat as natural as anything else.

How do you know?
If anything extintion rates suggests that the current biodiversity is collapsing, if we'll be there afterwards there is no telling which place we'll occupy in the food chain.


Id suggest extinction rates are so high because of us. And there's nothing to suggest we're going to lose our ability to be on top. Unless we biologically regress to lose our advantage.

It isn't what I said.
I said that now we have the opportunity to choose and that one choice spares unnecessary harm to animals, that isn't a direct consequence of our current spot in the food chain.
[/quote]

Isn't it? It is our position on top of the food chain that gives us the ability to choose. Choosing to opt out now seems unnatural and pointless. Our consolation prize to being the superior species is that we should abandon the strong, convenient, nutritious, and delicious diet ?

Perhaps I'm a barbarian, but it makes no sense to me.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: R: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Aygor » Wed May 14, 2014 2:18 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:Perhaps. Because pain and suffering shouldn't be In the equation at all. Pain and suffering do not benefit us at all In obtaining meat.

They are in the equation nonetheless, although death per se regardless of pain is what I referred to.
Killing any sentient being isn't a good action, it is justifiable.

Shikanosuke wrote:Indeed. One which should carry no negative stigma. Eating meat as natural as anything else.

It is natural and never that was disputed.
That says nothing whether it should or shouldn't carry a negative stigma though, that's for moral development to eventually decide.

Shikanosuke wrote:Id suggest extinction rates are so high because of us. And there's nothing to suggest we're going to lose our ability to be on top. Unless we biologically regress to lose our advantage.

We definitely play a big role.
Ecosystems are complex and frail, decay triggers unpredictable dynamics which may end us or dispute our position.

Shikanosuke wrote:
Isn't it? It is our position on top of the food chain that gives us the ability to choose. Choosing to opt out now seems unnatural and pointless. Our consolation prize to being the superior species is that we should abandon the strong, convenient, nutritious, and delicious diet ?

Food chain position has nothing to do with which diet an organism follows, we can choose because an alternative is available to us.
Eating meat is demonstrably environmentally unconvenient, it isn't any more nutritious than it's alternative, I have no clue what "strong" may mean in this context.
It is delicious though.
分久必合,合久必分
Ἀτύφως μὲν λαβεῖν, εὐλύτως δὲ ἀφεῖναι
User avatar
Aygor
Langzhong
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed May 14, 2014 2:27 pm

Aygor wrote:They are in the equation nonetheless, although death per se regardless of pain is what I referred to.
Killing any sentient being isn't a good action, it is justifiable.


They are not necessary to the process. And killing a sentient being for food is neither a good nor bad action (though I'd suggest killing it provide for others is certainly good). It is natural and justifiable.

It is natural and never that was disputed.
That says nothing whether it should or shouldn't carry a negative stigma though, that's for moral development to eventually decide.



I think it speaks volumes to whether it should carry a negative stigma.


Food chain position has nothing to do with which diet an organism follows, we can choose because an alternative is available to us.


It does for ours. We can choose, but have no 'shoulds' or 'should nots'. Our position on top allows us to choose. It's a freedom other species don't enjoy.


Eating meat is demonstrably environmentally unconvenient, it isn't any more nutritious than it's alternative, I have no clue what "strong" may mean in this context.
It is delicious though.


Strong in the sense it is nutritious. And it is highly superior nutritionally than the alternative. Which is why non meat eaters scramble to obtain the same nutrients through mediums which possess lower amounts. Why they hve to supplement the diet when they could achieve the same results from meat.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4318
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Why sharks are imporant

Unread postby Aygor » Wed May 14, 2014 3:53 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:They are not necessary to the process. And killing a sentient being for food is neither a good nor bad action (though I'd suggest killing it provide for others is certainly good). It is natural and justifiable.

The act of killing is an extreme act of violence imposed on the victim, it cannot be considered inherently good or above morality.
It is justifiable, as your example, to feed oneself and else.
Is it if it is avoidable?

Shikanosuke wrote:I think it speaks volumes to whether it should carry a negative stigma.

Are you willing to argue that which is natural can't carry a negative stigma?

Shikanosuke wrote:It does for ours. We can choose, but have no 'shoulds' or 'should nots'. Our position on top allows us to choose. It's a freedom other species don't enjoy.

No, the ability to choose is not a function of the position in the food chain.
Beings at the top of the food chain could be carnivore or herbivore and thus not able to choose, we could be not at the top of the food chain and still be able to choose.
At best you may argue that being at the top makes it impossible for any other species to bother our choices.

Shikanosuke wrote:Strong in the sense it is nutritious. And it is highly superior nutritionally than the alternative. Which is why non meat eaters scramble to obtain the same nutrients through mediums which possess lower amounts. Why they hve to supplement the diet when they could achieve the same results from meat.

While it can be argued otherwise, we already agreed that efficiency isn't the reasoning behind the choice of avoiding meat.
分久必合,合久必分
Ἀτύφως μὲν λαβεῖν, εὐλύτως δὲ ἀφεῖναι
User avatar
Aygor
Langzhong
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved