fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
To which civilization in this world are you referring?
I suppose that's why running a herd of buffalo over a cliff always resulted in hard to chew steaks.
Seems to me that causing animals to fall upon one another after a jolting crash from fifty to two hundred feet would tenderize the meat. Don't you use a similar process to tenderize sirloin for sandwiches?
Seriously its an open question terminal whether fear or stress impacts meat quality. It is known that seeing death leads bovines to panic, stampede, commit suicide, trying to escape. More likely that is why we conceal dying from those next in line.
As for standards that are animal specific, The fact is all I see are anthropomorphic reasons for any animal morality statements. That such should constitute a morality statement for animals says a lot about moral statements in general.
True, and to be honest, it wouldn't take much to push me over into the vegetarian way of life. If i had to hunt and kill my own dinner, I would starve to death!
True, and to be honest, it wouldn't take much to push me over into the vegetarian way of life. If i had to hunt and kill my own dinner, I would starve to death!
Naw. If you died it wouldn't be from wont of trying to produce food by any means.
OK Bronzeage. We agree tenderness has no part to play in the manner of death of our culinary victims. So morality is a set of rules built around surviving. What did we or our predecessors use when there was no theory linking survival to existence and before one or several deities were invented? Does this apply as well to social vertebrates or mammals? Wolves seem to share common social traits regarding young, old, consumption, and sex. Similarly some social modern bony fresh water fishes, teleosts, (mouth breeders come to mind) and some birds (Ducks studied at U Maryland by E. Hess). Not morality? Actually challenging your language requirement.
99% of all animals die a horrible death, usually involving being torn apart and eaten by a larger, scarier animal.
Humans kill animals with far less 'drama' and impact to the animal than every other animal on the planet.
So.. props to us!
Wolves kill large mammals by running them to exhaustion and them tearing flesh from the bones with their teeth. A wolf doesn't really have another option. Morality, for humans at least, predates deities. There has to be a social structure before things such as abstract concepts of God can exist, and social structure depends upon living in cooperation within the group.
... The empathy and compassion traits we learn in order to keep our children alive, sometimes clouds the learned traits by which we feed ourselves. The animals which once were our prey, become pseudo children. ...
Taking wolves which you a least found some social structure which you over severely limited. Hungary wolves will attack bears, a larger, more solitary animal by harassing the poor thing to exhaustion. An option in your words. They adapt socially to their situation and their prey.
The only links are weakening of their adversary and numbers a sufficient foundation for morality don't you think?
Dogs self recognize so there is something there for persistence of memory which might be a tactic one would take given there is basis for moral behavior in other social animals. Do they respect their dead? hmmmnnn. Is there more than just a dominance hierarchy among them and is that hierarchy the same in encampment and hunt?
No back to the others who addressed you after you addressed me.
... The empathy and compassion traits we learn in order to keep our children alive, sometimes clouds the learned traits by which we feed ourselves. The animals which once were our prey, become pseudo children. ...
Perhaps that is why wolves were able to become pets for humans?
Another problem for those who don't think morality is more anciently embedded than Tarsiers.
Taking wolves which you a least found some social structure which you over severely limited. Hungary wolves will attack bears, a larger, more solitary animal by harassing the poor thing to exhaustion. An option in your words. They adapt socially to their situation and their prey.
The only links are weakening of their adversary and numbers a sufficient foundation for morality don't you think?
Dogs self recognize so there is something there for persistence of memory which might be a tactic one would take given there is basis for moral behavior in other social animals. Do they respect their dead? hmmmnnn. Is there more than just a dominance hierarchy among them and is that hierarchy the same in encampment and hunt?
No back to the others who addressed you after you addressed me.
Perhaps that is why wolves were able to become pets for humans?
Another problem for those who don't think morality is more anciently embedded than Tarsiers.
What exactly are you arguing? A bear is a large mammal and the only option a wolf has for killing a bear is to run it to exhaustion and then tear it's flesh. Is there another choice of methods? Until wolves learn to set traps, or maybe develop a canine bow and arrow, they're going to be stuck with the chasing and biting thing.
Technical point. Canines have a social structure very similar to human family structure. There is a hierarchy, cooperative hunting and protection of the young. This allowed dogs to be assimilated into human families. The concept of "pet" is fairly new, on the time scale of history. Dogs were working animals and often food. Pets are found in cultures where there is a surplus of food and non-productive animals can be supported.
What exactly are you arguing? A bear is a large mammal and the only option a wolf has for killing a bear is to run it to exhaustion and then tear it's flesh. Is there another choice of methods? Until wolves learn to set traps, or maybe develop a canine bow and arrow, they're going to be stuck with the chasing and biting thing.
Technical point. Canines have a social structure very similar to human family structure. There is a hierarchy, cooperative hunting and protection of the young. This allowed dogs to be assimilated into human families. The concept of "pet" is fairly new, on the time scale of history. Dogs were working animals and often food. Pets are found in cultures where there is a surplus of food and non-productive animals can be supported.
First: The bear doesn't run from the wolves. duh.
Second: Dogs are predators like humans. that humans were able to domesticate to the point where they would work for us is a big, big, evolutionary step for them and us. Even bigger is those we'd domesticated for labor became pets because we selected them for human like qualities in their appearance and behaviors. It probably preceded farming, perhaps was the basis for farming.
Why eating something (foie gras) that requires extreme cruelty to animals to be produced?
Didnt you know that or do you not care?
Is it the cruelty, or the extreme cruelty, that is the problem?
Before a goose ends up on a serving platter, it will be killed by some method. I've seen chickens shoved headfirst into a funnel, which holds them immobile while a worker cuts their throats and they bleed to death. It took about a minute for them to stop kicking and cease those horrible noises. This was on an organic chicken farm, where I assume the chickens had a nice life, up to that point.
I know force feeding a goose in order for its diseased liver to be marketable seems gruesome to a human, but how do we know the goose doesn't like it?
- - - Updated - - -
Great, now this can-of-worms that had fizzled out and died is re-opened so I can spend my Sunday defending myself from attacks.
If you brought red wine and crackers, I got your back, bro.
I love "duh", at the end of a comment. It's like phd, after a signature.
First: A bear might not run from a wolf, but it will run from a pack of wolves. It's likely a pack would take a carcass from a wolf, and there would be little the bear could do about it. A bear can't eat and fight at the same time, but the wolves can take turns. If the bear insisted on contesting the carcass, it would become the wolfpack's next meal. In any case, the fates of the bear, the wolves, and whatever the carcass used to be, would not be considered "humane" in any sense of the word. Non-humans predators, in their natural state generally lack the tools to inflict a quick and painless death. It's only in our later years, as a species, that it's become a concern to us, as predators.
Second: A statement of irrelevant facts does not support an argument or form a rebuttal.
Morality, for humans at least, predates deities. There has to be a social structure before things such as abstract concepts of God can exist, and social structure depends upon living in cooperation within the group.
Dogs are predators like humans. that humans were able to domesticate to the point where they would work for us is a big, big, evolutionary step for them and us. Even bigger is those we'd domesticated for labor became pets because we selected them for human like qualities in their appearance and behaviors. It probably preceded farming, perhaps was the basis for farming.
This isn't going to get anyone to reconsider their position. Also this thread isn't for arguments. If you'd like to discuss the morality of meat eating, make a thread in Morals & Principles.
Its a rational forum is it not?
No, it is not, and it hasn't been for several years. I think the last time this was a rational forum, the place was still called IIDB.