@Dave1992

Honestly, I believe that every living thing has a right to live. People like to rank living things and
than drawl a line in which it is okay to end the growth of one thing but not the other. Humans
tend to think really highly of themselves, simply because they are rational. But, everything living
is also struggling for survivial, it has all gone through a long evolutionary process, and it all must
work together in nature.

While I understand the differences between a cow and a field of corn, I do not believe that either
one is more important, or that either one has MORE of a right to continue living. If I could live
without eating anything at all, I would do so. That is not reality, so I eat a number of living things.
I believe animals should be treated with dignity, just as I believe that soil and plants should be
harvested in a certain way.

LadyCasanova said:

@Dave1992

Honestly, I believe that every living thing has a right to live. People like to rank living things and
than drawl a line in which it is okay to end the growth of one thing but not the other. Humans
tend to think really highly of themselves, simply because they are rational. But, everything living
is also struggling for survivial, it has all gone through a long evolutionary process, and it all must
work together in nature.

While I understand the differences between a cow and a field of corn, I do not believe that either
one is more important, or that either one has MORE of a right to continue living. If I could live
without eating anything at all, I would do so. That is not reality, so I eat a number of living things.
I believe animals should be treated with dignity, just as I believe that soil and plants should be
harvested in a certain way.

But you do point out that we have to make a choice, even if it hurts. We, as human beings, have the potential to save the planet and all its animals. A grasshopper wouldn't be able to do that, nor to really care.

At the same time, we are probably the only species on this planet which is able to destroy it all single-handedly, because of our endless stupidity and ignorance.

The planet would arguably be better off without us, but it has gone so far that we are the only ones who are likely to be able to save it.

So, while of course no life is "worth" more than another, I believe than one life has the potential to contribute more to the well-being of all than another.

To stay on topic, that is why I do not eat animals. I know that a hungry lion would eat me, but I know that only I have the choice and the power not to eat other animals, because I have evolved the potential to behave ethically and look beyond the "survival of the fittest".

LadyCasanova said:

@Dave1992

Honestly, I believe that every living thing has a right to live. People like to rank living things and
than drawl a line in which it is okay to end the growth of one thing but not the other. Humans
tend to think really highly of themselves, simply because they are rational. But, everything living
is also struggling for survivial, it has all gone through a long evolutionary process, and it all must
work together in nature.

While I understand the differences between a cow and a field of corn, I do not believe that either
one is more important, or that either one has MORE of a right to continue living. If I could live
without eating anything at all, I would do so. That is not reality, so I eat a number of living things.
I believe animals should be treated with dignity, just as I believe that soil and plants should be
harvested in a certain way.

... and this made me laugh

Dave1992 said:

LadyCasanova said:

We haven't evolved more quickly, nor are we "more" evolved. We have simply evolved in a different manner.

I do not believe that eating an animal is unethical. I think torturing an animal is unethical,
but you can kill something and not be acting in an unethical manner.

You seem to be making an argument about rationality, mainly, that human rationality makes us
responsible for treating non-rational creatures in a certain manner. I believe in this, but to a limited extent.

Survival of the fittest is a very real part of evolution, but not in the way you are implying.

I am, of course, talking in terms of what we, as human beings, have found to be the most effective way of living an ethical life. Who is to say our ways could be "better" than an other animal's way? I agree... But we at least have the resources to think about these problems and find ways to solve them.


I believe that the natural road of evolution has long been altered and disrupted. Our intelligence (and therefore greed, jealousy and fantasies) make us pull the "survival of the fittest" card way too often. When it comes to evolution, there's no argueing we have long been the fittest of all on this planet. The next step is deciding carefully what we do with this power, in my opinion.

Yes, but there is no "one way fits all" peg when it comes to ethics. In fact, philosophers have only
been able to narrow constant ethics down to about 4-5 actions, which, in my view, have less
to do with ethics and more to do with the survival of our species.

I still don't think you are using the term "survival of the fittest" correctly. You seem to be using

it in the main stream way, verses its actual implications in evolution. Survival of the fittest has
to do with passing certain traits to offspring and having the ability to reproduce ect.
Every organism that currently exists is in the middle of the process. No one species is "winning."

Dave1992 said:

LadyCasanova said:

@Dave1992

Honestly, I believe that every living thing has a right to live. People like to rank living things and
than drawl a line in which it is okay to end the growth of one thing but not the other. Humans
tend to think really highly of themselves, simply because they are rational. But, everything living
is also struggling for survivial, it has all gone through a long evolutionary process, and it all must
work together in nature.

While I understand the differences between a cow and a field of corn, I do not believe that either
one is more important, or that either one has MORE of a right to continue living. If I could live
without eating anything at all, I would do so. That is not reality, so I eat a number of living things.
I believe animals should be treated with dignity, just as I believe that soil and plants should be
harvested in a certain way.

But you do point out that we have to make a choice, even if it hurts. We, as human beings, have the potential to save the planet and all its animals. A grasshopper wouldn't be able to do that, nor to really care.

At the same time, we are probably the only species on this planet which is able to destroy it all single-handedly, because of our endless stupidity and ignorance.

The planet would arguably be better off without us, but it has gone so far that we are the only ones who are likely to be able to save it.

So, while of course no life is "worth" more than another, I believe than one life has the potential to contribute more to the well-being of all than another.

To stay on topic, that is why I do not eat animals. I know that a hungry lion would eat me, but I know that only I have the choice and the power not to eat other animals, because I have evolved the potential to behave ethically and look beyond the "survival of the fittest".

While a grasshopper may not give a shit about saving the world, it also hasn't fucked it up. The
road to hell is paved with good intentions. We think we need to save the planet, but in fact, the
efforts we take to "make things better" usually end in us making things worse.

If every single human dropped dead tomorrow, the planet would go about its business. The planet
does not need us, we need it.

Everything that lives depends on something else in nature. If all of the Grasshoppers die, than
whatever thing in nature that depended on grasshoppers for survival suffers...and so does the
creature that depended on that thing. Humans are the most rational, and yet, humans have done
the most damage. I am not talking about eating meat. Think of the shirt you have on, the
condom you slide on, the products you put in your hair or on your face. All in the name of being
"clean" or looking "good."

Even if we are not on topic, I respect the discussion we are having.

Dave1992 said:

LadyCasanova said:

While I understand the differences between a cow and a field of corn, I do not believe that either
one is more important, or that either one has MORE of a right to continue living.

... and this made me laugh

You know damn well that someone on here would have acted like I thought they were the exact same thing.

LadyCasanova said:

Dave1992 said:

I am, of course, talking in terms of what we, as human beings, have found to be the most effective way of living an ethical life. Who is to say our ways could be "better" than an other animal's way? I agree... But we at least have the resources to think about these problems and find ways to solve them.


I believe that the natural road of evolution has long been altered and disrupted. Our intelligence (and therefore greed, jealousy and fantasies) make us pull the "survival of the fittest" card way too often. When it comes to evolution, there's no argueing we have long been the fittest of all on this planet. The next step is deciding carefully what we do with this power, in my opinion.

Yes, but there is no "one way fits all" peg when it comes to ethics. In fact, philosophers have only
been able to narrow constant ethics down to about 4-5 actions, which, in my view, have less
to do with ethics and more to do with the survival of our species.

I still don't think you are using the term "survival of the fittest" correctly. You seem to be using

it in the main stream way, verses its actual implications in evolution. Survival of the fittest has
to do with passing certain traits to offspring and having the ability to reproduce ect.
Every organism that currently exists is in the middle of the process. No one species is "winning."

I've learned that "survival of the fittest" actually means what most people think it does. It's a general concept implying that an entity with a better longevity, easier and more frequent reproduction and more effective defense mechanisms will "outlive" another entity. I think you are simply applying it to evolutionary theory (which is probably the most common manifestation of the concept, admittedly). I believe that it can be applied to metaphor study in linguistics too, just to name an example. And it's the same with all present species on this planet: the stronger animal eats the weaker animal, but dies when all the weaker animals have been eaten, and so the cycle begins again etc.

Dave1992 said:

LadyCasanova said:

Yes, but there is no "one way fits all" peg when it comes to ethics. In fact, philosophers have only
been able to narrow constant ethics down to about 4-5 actions, which, in my view, have less
to do with ethics and more to do with the survival of our species.

I still don't think you are using the term "survival of the fittest" correctly. You seem to be using

it in the main stream way, verses its actual implications in evolution. Survival of the fittest has
to do with passing certain traits to offspring and having the ability to reproduce ect.
Every organism that currently exists is in the middle of the process. No one species is "winning."

I've learned that "survival of the fittest" actually means what most people think it does. It's a general concept implying that an entity with a better longevity, easier and more frequent reproduction and more effective defense mechanisms will "outlive" another entity. I think you are simply applying it to evolutionary theory (which is probably the most common manifestation of the concept, admittedly). I believe that it can be applied to metaphor study in linguistics too, just to name an example. And it's the same with all present species on this planet: the stronger animal eats the weaker animal, but dies when all the weaker animals have been eaten, and so the cycle begins again etc.

I agree with about 99% of your definition.

I would like to hear (read) your example, in relation to linguistics.

It is about way more than the strong eating the weak. Plus, the point about survival of the fittest is
that there is usally a surviver. If the weak simply die out you have extinction. Which is usually
considered the ultimate inability to survive and reproduce offspring (that make it to maturity).

If, as you seem to believe, we argue that humans are the current strongest animal, than by your
defintion we shall "eat" all of the weaker animals (which is everything, since we are on top) and
than we will die...? <plz correct me if I am understanding you incorrectly>

LadyCasanova said:

Dave1992 said:

But you do point out that we have to make a choice, even if it hurts. We, as human beings, have the potential to save the planet and all its animals. A grasshopper wouldn't be able to do that, nor to really care.

At the same time, we are probably the only species on this planet which is able to destroy it all single-handedly, because of our endless stupidity and ignorance.

The planet would arguably be better off without us, but it has gone so far that we are the only ones who are likely to be able to save it.

So, while of course no life is "worth" more than another, I believe than one life has the potential to contribute more to the well-being of all than another.

To stay on topic, that is why I do not eat animals. I know that a hungry lion would eat me, but I know that only I have the choice and the power not to eat other animals, because I have evolved the potential to behave ethically and look beyond the "survival of the fittest".

While a grasshopper may not give a shit about saving the world, it also hasn't fucked it up. The
road to hell is paved with good intentions. We think we need to save the planet, but in fact, the
efforts we take to "make things better" usually end in us making things worse.

If every single human dropped dead tomorrow, the planet would go about its business. The planet
does not need us, we need it.

Everything that lives depends on something else in nature. If all of the Grasshoppers die, than
whatever thing in nature that depended on grasshoppers for survival suffers...and so does the
creature that depended on that thing. Humans are the most rational, and yet, humans have done
the most damage. I am not talking about eating meat. Think of the shirt you have on, the
condom you slide on, the products you put in your hair or on your face. All in the name of being
"clean" or looking "good."

Even if we are not on topic, I respect the discussion we are having.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say: the planet wouldn't "need" us, but the natural cycle has long been disrupted by the emergence of our human rationale. And with our rationale comes what I've mentioned before: jealousy, fantasy, greed, lust, ... and all this is the driving power behind the shirt I wear, the condoms I slide on and the hair products I use, of course! I wouldn't want to miss those things, because I like material shit; and I like material shit, because I'm human and because all the things that make me value material shit also make me recognize the difference between amusement/luxury and empathy/compassion/ethics.

I wouldn't try breaking out of the cycle and becoming a hermit: I like my hair the way it is and wouldn't have it any other way. But, I am more than ready to choose to not eat meat, at least.

That's why I don't actively critisize people who do eat meat and try to talk them out of it; 'cause then I would be a hypocrite.

I believe in cherishing what makes us humans human, including our selfish quest for superficial perfection, material goods and elegance. But I also believe in the other part of what makes us humans human: not taking it for granted and knowing where to draw the line (something everyone should do for themselves).
I believe

Dave1992 said:

I wouldn't try breaking out of the cycle and becoming a hermit: I like my hair the way it is and wouldn't have it any other way. But, I am more than ready to choose to not eat meat, at least.

That's why I don't actively critisize people who do eat meat and try to talk them out of it; 'cause then I would be a hypocrite.

And I am more than willing to share a vegetarian feast with you!

I respect the choices you have made, I also recognize that they are no better or worse than the
ones I am making.

LadyCasanova said:

Dave1992 said:

I've learned that "survival of the fittest" actually means what most people think it does. It's a general concept implying that an entity with a better longevity, easier and more frequent reproduction and more effective defense mechanisms will "outlive" another entity. I think you are simply applying it to evolutionary theory (which is probably the most common manifestation of the concept, admittedly). I believe that it can be applied to metaphor study in linguistics too, just to name an example. And it's the same with all present species on this planet: the stronger animal eats the weaker animal, but dies when all the weaker animals have been eaten, and so the cycle begins again etc.

I agree with about 99% of your definition.

I would like to hear (read) your example, in relation to linguistics.

It is about way more than the strong eating the weak. Plus, the point about survival of the fittest is
that there is usally a surviver. If the weak simply die out you have extinction. Which is usually
considered the ultimate inability to survive and reproduce offspring (that make it to maturity).

If, as you seem to believe, we argue that humans are the current strongest animal, than by your
defintion we shall "eat" all of the weaker animals (which is everything, since we are on top) and
than we will die...? <plz correct me if I am understanding you incorrectly>

I am trying to say that, theoretically, we have earned the "right" to do whatever the fuck we want, just because we can. But that, by earning this right and gaining power (and knowledge) we have also gained the power to assess our actions on an ethical basis (which in return made me happily stop eating meat), putting our human interests in constant conflict with our conscience.


About evolutionary theory in linguistics: I once wrote a paper where I compared "genes" to "memes" (the idea and general concept behind a metaphor), theorizing about why some metaphor have become "dead" metaphors (used without consciously using a metaphor, such as saying "you've won the argument", which actually implies the metaphor "argument is war"), while other metaphors have vanished completely from our general vocabulary. I have argued that memes establish themselves in our minds because of means of longevity (=relevance in society), reproductive quality (=a possibly simple link between the target domain and the source domain in a metaphor) and successful defense mechanism (=reproducing the general idea and emotion in other minds more accurately than other metaphors would). That's kinda the general direction I tried taking this into.

Militant said:

The only difference between humans and other animals is that we have the ability to make a compassionate choice. I believe that compassion as a way of life involves not killing or abusing as animals. It's really that simple.

Yep, it probably is. I agree.

LadyCasanova said:

Dave1992 said:

... and this made me laugh

You know damn well that someone on here would have acted like I thought they were the exact same thing.

Indeed I know...

LadyCasanova said:

@Dave1992

Honestly, I believe that every living thing has a right to live. People like to rank living things and
than drawl a line in which it is okay to end the growth of one thing but not the other. Humans
tend to think really highly of themselves, simply because they are rational. But, everything living
is also struggling for survivial, it has all gone through a long evolutionary process, and it all must
work together in nature.

While I understand the differences between a cow and a field of corn, I do not believe that either
one is more important, or that either one has MORE of a right to continue living. If I could live
without eating anything at all, I would do so. That is not reality, so I eat a number of living things.
I believe animals should be treated with dignity, just as I believe that soil and plants should be
harvested in a certain way.

Personally, I'm very much against most field of corns, because they are GMO.

Not very healthy and disrupting evolution in very disturbing matter.

On the other hand, GMO crops cause infertility in men, so I guess mankind has found it's own evolutionary answer to human overpopulation.

If we stopped eating meat all cows would die. They have no real way of protecting themselves.

I respect people's choices whether they be vegetarian, vegan, whatever. I even enjoy some vegetarian dishes, but I do love beef. I could live without pork, veal, lamb, and I never did like goat. I like fish, but I don't like the very popular tilapia. I like shellfish better. I can eat tuna every day. Would I give up meat forever? No. but I could cut back.

I used to be friendly with a woman who gave up eating meat, but she was one of those fanatics that got on my nerves big time. She would constantly lecture about the horrors of meat and would even go so far as to try to take the food off your plate. That's where I drew the line and had to jump in her ass. Three things you don't mess with a black woman's: her money, her man and her meal!

LayzieKiddZ said:

dJJ said:

GMO food is extremely upsetting.

Especially because the government and Monsanto are sooooo close.

There is evidence that men have became less fertile. Their seed is not as good as it used to be.

The same result is found in rats and mice (and other animals) who were served GMO food.

It's not only the gmo food, btw. It's also the toxics that are sprayed upon the GMO food that makes men infertile.

IMO, this is the biggest scandal since WWII, unfortunately nobody seems to care.

BTW, if the meat industry would not be as criminal as it is, I might eat meat now and then.

I'm not against eating meat (sometimes) per se, however, the way the animals are treated is just disgusting.

And there of course is the growth hormones, anti-biotics, bacterias and what more that influences your body, when you eat meat.



I'm doing exactly what Gunshalen his friends are doing!!!


Sorry, Gunshalen. It's not that I want you to change. It's just the topic that gets me talking.

I'm surprised that food can even be considered food in the US with all the GMO.
Not only in vegtiable and food products, but meat itself. Its disasterous. Its work to just find real food now a days. Worst part is most people dont know.

Even most of the seeds we plant these days are suspect...

[Edited 12/25/13 15:29pm]

I've been lucky enough to have vegan and vegatarian friends who have never tried to shame me out of eating meat and the only time I find myself getting defensive is when someone wants to preach to me about it. I find those people to be complete and total hypocrites and usually ignore them anyway.

Stymie said:

I've been lucky enough to have vegan and vegatarian friends who have never tried to shame me out of eating meat and the only time I find myself getting defensive is when someone wants to preach to me about it. I find those people to be complete and total hypocrites and usually ignore them anyway.

Stymie said:

I've been lucky enough to have vegan and vegatarian friends who have never tried to shame me out of eating meat and the only time I find myself getting defensive is when someone wants to preach to me about it. I find those people to be complete and total hypocrites and usually ignore them anyway.

Exactly.

Shyra said:I respect people's choices whether they be vegetarian, vegan, whatever. I even enjoy some vegetarian dishes, but I do love beef. I could live without pork, veal, lamb, and I never did like goat. I like fish, but I don't like the very popular tilapia. I like shellfish better. I can eat tuna every day. Would I give up meat forever? No. but I could cut back.

I used to be friendly with a woman who gave up eating meat, but she was one of those fanatics that got on my nerves big time. She would constantly lecture about the horrors of meat and would even go so far as to try to take the food off your plate. That's where I drew the line and had to jump in her ass. Three things you don't mess with a black woman's: her money, her man and her meal!

Taking food off your plate - WTF???? That calls for a serious ass-whipping.

Genesia said:

Stymie said:

I've been lucky enough to have vegan and vegatarian friends who have never tried to shame me out of eating meat and the only time I find myself getting defensive is when someone wants to preach to me about it. I find those people to be complete and total hypocrites and usually ignore them anyway.

Exactly.

Co--sign!