The need to preserve the environment and nature also stems from the love of animals, but anyone who deals with the subject knows that this is not enough, and sometimes "love of animals" conflicts with the preservation of nature.
First a full disclosure, I am in favor of "light" or partial vegetarianism, I eat a little meat. Also because in my opinion a reduction in eating meat is good for the environment, but mostly from laziness.
In previous lists I referred to the need to reduce meat consumption in order to prevent damage to the natural environment. I hinted that preserving nature and the natural environment are not always connected to "love of animals" and certainly not to veganism.
The need to preserve the environment and nature also stems from the love of animals, but anyone who deals with the subject knows that this is not enough, and sometimes "love of animals" conflicts with the preservation of nature. Because of human activity, most areas are disturbed, and in large areas there is an invasion of alien species. That is why today preserving nature and the environment means managing the environment based on scientific data that directs conservation activities that sometimes require harm to one species or another.
It is better that "animal lovers" learn and internalize the difference between "loving animals" and preserving the natural environment.
The "love of animals" is perhaps also the reason for the spread of veganism, a fashion that "celebrities" lean towards even if they do not understand its full meaning.
A model opens sad calf eyes, shows captions simulating the cruelty that farm animals go through and then announces the need to go vegan.
Maybe instead of the "bombastic" announcement it should have done to stop the cruelty to farm animals. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to check who is being cruel and then it would become clear that in most farms the animals get improved and good living conditions for the simple reason that good conditions make it possible to produce fine products. And in this regard it is worth remembering that in modern agriculture farm animals are a product industry, such as fruit trees or vegetables. Farm animals are so far from their natural origin that without human intervention they have no chance of survival.
And again the last sentence contains a commitment to take care of the welfare of farm animals. The welfare of farm animals certainly does not mean the cessation of the production of food and other products from farm animals, which the vegans preach.
Let's assume for a moment that the vegan fad will be accepted and implemented. How will a vegan exist? After all, he is not allowed to wear leather, bone, or anything that comes from animals, he is not allowed to wear silk clothes - because for the purpose of producing silk, the larvae are killed (cooked).
For the preachers' information, agricultural fields are fertilized with products from the barns and chicken coops, so cotton and linen products are also prohibited from being used (well, go naked?). The manure comes from places that you call for elimination (after the elimination, what will happen to the animals?), in order not to harm the animals, it is forbidden to eat vegetables or fruits that have been manured with manure from the barn, the barn or the chicken coop. Will the "guru" Gary Yurofsky and his "disciples" come and explain to us how to settle the contradiction?
Let's imagine a group of vegans arriving on an equatorial island... the members of the group eat fruits, roots, tubers and plants, without harming animals(?). But the animals also consume the same products, which means there is competition between the human population and the animals. How does it go with the vegans?
Over time the group grew and the natural environment could not satisfy the needs of the human population. The natural solution would be the consumption of animal food products. But these are vegans. What to do?
Now let's compare the equatorial island to the whole world, our ancient ancestors did collect roots and tubers, ate fruits and plants but did not hesitate to diversify with animal products, without diversity we would not have reached where we are today and without diversity today there would not be enough food to feed the human population. So maybe veganism is only intended for the very few who have "skills", connections and financial means?
If so, the preachers of veganism would do well if they directed their arrows at targeted goals and did not preach against every factory, farm, farmer or manufacturer that produces food from animals and thereby reduces hunger. Perhaps instead of spreading nonsense, they will turn their efforts to transferring food sources from the fertile and satiated West to hungry populations. Maybe instead of preaching a stupid and undiversified fashion they will refer to a world where in the West food is thrown in the trash and in Africa people are dying of hunger.
178 תגובות
Also lying that you can very cheaply get all the proteins you need from plants (of course, this is possible by mixing many types of nuts and legumes, most of which are expensive) and that unhealthy milk and all kinds of other nonsense is not nice.
"In most farms, the animals get improved and good living conditions for the simple reason that good conditions make it possible to produce fine products."
Expressing an opinion is legitimate. To lie like that with a determined forehead, absolutely not. What a shame that the brainwashing reaches even this respectable site.
Yair
I did not understand. Does an improvement in the economy increase or decrease the rate of population growth?
Miracles,
I don't know how fast you read and respond, but I didn't write what kind of relationship there is between the economic processes and the population growth function. In any case, throughout history there has been a direct relationship between the ability to produce food and the processes of population growth/decrease (as well as improving health and increasing life expectancy long before the invention of medicine), and this is also what is happening today, if a change is also taking place in many countries, the health of the population is not a measure individual, and environmental destruction is caused many times more by the rich and healthy populations, who to a large extent throw their garbage in poor countries. I only see the need to emphasize that with less food biota, and much less environmental damage, we would not have starved to death, but the population would have grown less. And that in itself would have reduced the environmental destruction.
Miracles,
I don't know how fast you read and respond, but I didn't write what kind of relationship there is between the economic processes and the population growth function. In any case, throughout history there was a direct relationship between the ability to produce food and the processes of population growth/decrease, and this is also what is happening today, if a change is also taking place in many countries, the health of the population is not a single measure, and environmental destruction is caused many times more by the rich populations And the health, I just see the need to emphasize that with less food biota, and much less environmental damage, we would not starve to death, but the population would grow less. And that in itself would have reduced the environmental destruction.
Yair
Why ignore the facts?
Population growth is inversely related to economic processes - you are welcome to check the relationship between the rate of growth and the average income per capita in each country. Life expectancy today is the highest in history.
The state of health in the countries where there is a lot of use of "nutritional biochemistry" is better than the countries without it.
Miracles,
Why underestimate the discussion, we wouldn't starve to death, the increase in population is always a function of economic processes, not to mention that food biochemistry has caused huge environmental and health damage that is manifested in huge expenses that offset its benefits.
Yair
I understand from you that without all these miracles, we would all have died of hunger a long time ago. That seems right to me.
Avi,
I commented on Rothschild's report only to clarify a lack of connection between dietary ways and access to science. Regarding pulses and other seeds, such as rice, wheat, sesame, and many more, thirty percent of Indian vegetarians, the vast majority of them are very poor. These are excellent foods and much cheaper than meat. Definitely cheap.
Comparing eggs with the most expensive plant foods is a mistake. The relative cheapening of animal products was made possible due to the use of what I will generally call "dietary biochemistry", which includes hormones, antibiotics, genetic manipulations, animal destruction of plants and much more, all of which are huge environmental pests, and seriously harm humans.
I am attaching here a link to a film known to many about the harms of genetic engineering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k
ארי
What is immoral about eating fish? There is no conversion of suffering to the fish here.
From the article Eric linked to from NG
For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we only get about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef.
An interesting point, but how many of these hundred calories that the animals eat are we as humans able to eat? I found no data. I would love to see if anyone has. (My last visit to the barn makes me think not much.)
Beyond that, the section with the meat is a relatively small section of the article. The complaint about it there is mainly the use of agricultural land to grow food for animals instead of for humans. This is not really relevant for animals in pastures.
There are much more significant things about the ability to feed the world's population from this point.
Is the question whether it is possible to feed the world's population without meat, milk and eggs?
Is the question whether feeding the world's population without meat, milk and eggs is the optimal way? How do you even define this optimality?
What are the questions that should guide us in making these decisions?
My friend Michael Rothschild does not preach to others how to eat, and he also consumes dairy products and eggs, which is a serious crime in the eyes of vegans of the Yurofsky variety. The real price of the vegetables is not lower than the price of meat, if you look at the nutritional and caloric value, and if you really consume all the legumes and edish and peas and all these, it really does not come out cheaper, and therefore only Westerners can afford it. Do you know that one hen that lays eggs, produces more than a tree that produces fruit or nuts, in fact almost as much as an entire forest. What is happening in Israel is that the meat, milk and eggs are under the control of monopolies and therefore they are expensive. Go to America, the situation is reversed, the meat is cheap and the vegetables are expensive.
So maybe it's true that seeds are being misused, they could give them to humans but then they could feed with those seeds far fewer people than they feed animals for human consumption (or for the consumption of eggs, milk and honey). And finally, an interesting post I received on Facebook today:
"I really want to meet a vegan friend, so that one day I can invite him to the fascinating lecture "The terrible mistake in history: when humans learned to bake and the holocaust of yeast" when in reality it is a conference of converts through network marketing."
ארי
What is immoral about eating fish?
Avi,
Your comments against Eric are really irrelevant. Mixing veganism with global warming denial and evolution is ridiculous. The price of plant food is approximately ten times lower than meat and five times lower than dairy products and eggs. Legumes with grains provide complete protein, such as lentils, beans, peas and bread, and combinations of the same type. Also, your friend Rothschild told on this site that he is a vegan and will not be treated with denials of the above type.
Still. There won't be enough food even a fair percentage of the crops will be used for humans
Finally, since you answered me with contempt, there is no reason for me not to respond:
'The mind' and 'the data',
"But until you solve the problem of 99% of the plant that is inedible, you don't have enough space on earth to provide plant nutrition and that's what all the experts I know say."
Yes?
"It would be much easier to feed nine billion people in 2050 if a higher proportion of the agricultural produce was intended for feeding people"
"It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomach"
That is: if the agricultural produce from the plant went directly to feed people, it would be less wasteful. Black on white. This is for some reason a figure that - surprisingly - will not appear on your website.
In India, not Norway or Sweden: 30 percent of the population are vegans, and as a vegan, from experience you can go to a dietician at the health insurance fund (that's what she's there for, right?) and get recommendations on proper nutrition. Add supplements like B12 (very cheap in the CPF) I for example don't eat expensive foods, it's just nonsense. All that is needed is simply awareness of where to get the necessary components in order to maintain normal health.
From Wikipedia, with the exception of 2 plugins that can be completed relatively easily:
"According to the general agreement among scientists, it is possible to obtain all the nutrients a person needs from plant foods, except for a number of specific nutrients that are essential to him that are not available and sufficient in a common vegan diet and need to be supplemented, usually, from a nutritional supplement.."
But what's more is very simple hominin.
Eric, please, set up a site with an agenda and write nonsense as you wish, we've had enough of your whining on Big Brother, it's a science news site, and the talkbacks are meant to respond, if the response does not depend on the responses of the others but returns to the same agenda, there's no point in it, want to - Continue the debate on the website's Facebook page under the link to the article, it's a shame about the load on the database. I understand that you have already internalized that you will not convince me. There are enough other places for propaganda that appeals to emotion and ignores reason and data.
By the way there are 850 million atheists, it's not a majority but it's enough.
'The consensus' 'the norm that has existed for thousands of years' do you mean 'the majority'?
Most of humanity also believes in some religion, so what?
What is true in the bottom line: with abstract thinking, without abstract thinking: 'We are all equal in suffering'
The difference between me and them is that I defend the norm that has existed for thousands of years and they go against the consensus. A few loud companies who invented their own science cannot demand that I change the consensus neither on meat matters, nor on warming matters, nor on evolution matters. And the fact that you are cherry-picking the data without understanding it makes you a denier, not me.
By the way, man is not a vegetarian animal, so the mere fact that I eat meat means that I am human.
my father
The global warming deniers have an agenda
Evolution deniers have an agenda
you have an agenda (you eat meat)
And this professor is not vegan
There are also professors who deny global warming. There are also evolution deniers. As a matter of fact, it is necessary to slightly increase the proportion of plant-based food (in most of the world people eat more meat than in Israel) and to switch more to poultry instead of red meat, but until you solve the problem of 99% of the plant that is inedible, you do not have enough space on earth to provide a plant-based diet and That's what all the experts I know say.
That 36% would not be enough for the same number of people if they were to feed people directly.
And of course for the Westerners it doesn't matter if they only use a percentage of the plant because they have the money to buy it, but what will over a billion people do who don't even make a living on 2 dollars a day? Will they also be able to eat different types of nuts and quinoa and other expensive things to get complete protein? Also from the ecological point of view, a combination of animal and plant farms is the ideal solution. How many percent is debatable, but definitely not 100% plant-based and zero percent meat.
Miracles
What's wrong with fish?
It is immoral
And for you in English:
It would be far easier to feed nine billion people by 2050 if more of the crops we grew ended up in human stomachs. Today only 55 percent of the world's crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent).
By the way, without disrespecting your master's degree in entrepreneurship,
The professor from the article:
Jonathan Foley is the director of the Institute on the Environment at the University of Minnesota, where he is also a professor and McKnight Presidential Chair of Global Environment and Sustainability.
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/foley-global-food-production-reduce-environmental-damage-maps/)
my father
What anonymous? Does National Geographic also have a vegan agenda? Aniwi is not about veganism and you are welcome to read it here:
Very interesting
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/
ארי
What's wrong with fish? Both healthy and environmentally friendly.
Let's say that relying on Anonymus in matters of nutritional science is equivalent to relying on the Lubavitcher Rebbe in matters of evolution. When humans have a cow's stomach that can digest cellulose we can all be vegetarians. Until then, go to Yurofsky and tell him that in truth, Jesus, Moses and Muhammad were virtuous individuals who managed to sway millions after them and create a great religion that is also based on lies, and like any religion, Yurofsky also wants to establish a kosher mechanism that will bring him money.
The May issue of the official magazine of National Geographic, devotes a long article to the global food problem and the immediate need for dietary change, and reveals horrifying images from the largest animal industries in the world.
"Agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to global warming and the emission of greenhouse gases, with the most harmful being methane gas and carbon dioxide, which are common in the context of raising farm animals. But the economic prosperity that is currently spreading beyond the Western world, and especially to China and India, increases the demand for meat, eggs and dairy products, and intensifies the pressure on farmers to grow more corn and soybeans to feed an increasing amount of cattle, poultry and pigs."
A team of scientists who formulated steps to deal with the global food problem, points to dietary change as one of the important tools for a solution:
"It will be much easier to feed nine billion people in 2050 if a higher proportion of the agricultural produce is intended for feeding people. Today, only 55 percent of the calories in global agricultural produce feed humans directly; The rest of the calories are mainly used to feed farm animals"
(anonymous)
Well, I don't know if I'm scaring people again, but I don't do Facebook.
So Absalom, if you happen to reply to me on Facebook, I don't see it.
My father wants more traffic to his site, Facebook causes this sometimes your friends see the comments and respond and then they also get to know the science site
Avi Blizovsky
What is the problem with commenting under the article itself here on the website?
Avshalom, in light of these deaf dialogues, I would be happy if you would transfer the continuation of the discussion to the Facebook page of the website of the knowledge below the above article, where you already have other partners https://www.facebook.com/hayadan/posts/770221779663659?comment_id=770599842959186&offset=0&total_comments=6
Absalom
I understand you are against spraying field crops? Biological spraying also prevents many species from reproducing. Vaccines kill innocent bacteria.
If I'm not allowed to set limits, then neither are you.
And I haven't even started talking about the brutal process of making ketchup!
Absalom
Sorry I went through all the comments here and couldn't figure it out. I'm asking you to start explaining to me from the beginning because I'm probably having a hard time.
First, calm down a bit, you fail to understand me and are overreacting, without understanding what I mean. I will explain to you.
I don't define the problem as "what exactly is wrong with eating meat". I did not claim here that you should or should not eat meat. You claimed that we should stop eating meat. I am trying to understand this claim.
If you want me to explain to you what is normal about eating meat first, no problem. Meat is a nutritious food for humans and humans need to eat to survive (or at least that's how it worked last time I checked).
I got the impression that your argument is that we should not eat meat at all, and not only that we should not eat meat that comes from the meat industry. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
You think that the issue here is whether it is moral to take the lives and make the animals suffer* in captivity for meat. Nice, I'm not sweeping it. I just think that in order to answer this question you need to know first whether it is wrong or not to eat meat.
*Although I haven't seen anyone here claim that the suffering caused to animals is something they agree with.
Morality is very nice, morality also varies from person to person and from company to company, and that's why I asked to leave it aside and make concrete claims. Saying it's immoral doesn't explain why you think so.
You want to convince people not to eat meat, eggs and dairy products, don't you? Do you really think you will convince someone by shouting "it's immoral", "it's murder", "it's slavery", "it's a holocaust"?
Don't you think that explaining to people properly the problematic that you notice, in a coherent way, is a better way to get there?
By the way, it is not true that you can kill and eat animals freely. Many animals are protected from hunting and not just hunting for sport purposes in many countries. In the State of Israel, for example, there is a law on the matter, and even if you are really, really hungry, you cannot just hunt down any animal and eat it. By the way, this hunting ban is not unrelated to the meat industry.
Volking, it's really ironic that you demonstrate exactly what you seek to avoid.
The very fact that you define the problem as "what exactly is wrong with eating meat" is in itself a form of "I don't have the strength to make a clear claim, and actually as a way to avoid". The main question that came up and was discussed is not whether it is wrong to eat meat (a health question) but whether it is moral to take the lives (in addition to their slavery and suffering in the industrial economy) of animals imprisoned in the economy for meat for food? The moral concept is defined around the use of the words murder or killing.
And this is exactly what I have been discussing with Nisim for the past few days, for three days now I have been explaining "why this is problematic". Start reading the comments here (newer comments are above): https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-naturalism-and-animal-saving-0405149/comment-page-5/#comment-519184
Absalom
where we will try to get to the root of the problem. What exactly is wrong with eating meat?
Let's try to avoid using the saying "it's immoral" because it seems to me that it is actually used here as a kind of saying I don't have the strength to make a clear claim, and basically as a way to avoid explaining what you see as problematic.
walking death i get your fix.
I should have used another example like Homo erectus evolved before Homo sapiens.
Nissim I accept your correction regarding an inaccurate (and unintentional) citation of your intention in the paragraph about the retarded child and the whale on the beach.
From Outhall I accept your comment to a certain extent, I of course used the term race in a genetic context, not in the context of a social or ethnic model. The scientific consensus today is divided as to whether the division into human races has meaning in the understanding of genetic variation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_classification)#Complications_and_various_definitions_of_the_concept
Note that the change was only after the Second World War, and the rights of blacks in the USA, where the terminology was used in the most negative and extreme way. Whether we admit it or not, the source of change is sociological. And rightfully so of course. But note that there is no problem using the word breed for animals, see 'dog breeds' in the Hebrew Wikipedia for example.
On the other hand, animals can be murdered and eaten freely, they cannot represent themselves in UNESCO and complain about the current epistemology, just as the term 'race' has left an opening for negative actions in weak groups of humans in a systematic way.
Racism is only a sub-branch of speciesism taxonomic sexism. Coming out against racism and not against taxonomic sexuality, is like coming out against anti-Semitism and not against racism. It is not uprooting the evil.
Miracles,
"I think it's okay to eat meat. You have to eat less and you have to make sure that the animals don't suffer. This also includes the killing step, it should be done without any fear or pain.”
"I think it's okay to be a slave trader. You need to own less and you need to make sure that the slaves do not suffer. This also includes the killing step, it should be done without any fear or pain.”
"I think it's okay to get rid of the Jews. We need to be more humane and we need to make sure that the Jews do not suffer. This also includes the killing step, it should be done without any fear or pain.”
"I think it's okay to do a targeted counter to miracles. We need to hate less and we need to make sure that miracles do not suffer. This also includes the killing step, it should be done without any fear or pain.”
There are things that cannot be bleached with bleach either.
Clarification on the topic "that the group of black people evolved and flourished before the whites"
Both the people who are white today, and those who are black, and those who are blue, purple, pink, and green, are descendants of the same group that we estimate had dark skin. The "whites" did not split from the same group and today's "blacks" are not the same group, they are descendants of the same group to the same extent. To claim that these developed before these is an error. They evolved at the same time (as well as all the other organisms that existed during this period).
I have no problem with Absalom being a vegetarian, and I have no problem with him preaching what he believes in.
But, I have a problem when he calls me a murderer. And I also explained why I have a problem.
The color thing bothers me, because I don't understand why it came up in the discussion here at all. We are all the same species. What do I care about the color of light? And what do I care about level of intelligence, another topic that came up here.
I do not understand what is unclear, or what is inconsistent, in my position. I think it's okay to eat meat. You have to eat less and you have to make sure that the animals don't suffer. This also includes the killing phase, this should be done without any fear or pain.
What is the definition of "more developed". I'm not sure. All that is claimed is that the black human group evolved and flourished before the whites. that's it.
Nisim, I don't understand why you don't adopt the Peirce formula?
Who are you to decide that those who trade in black slaves and employ them are not removed? Your morals.. Your knowledge. Your thought that every person has basic rights. Human rights. All Absalom asks is: Why does only an animal deserve human rights??
Point straight on top of that by the way. And he decided that man has awareness. Awareness of oneself, the environment and the feelings of others. Desire to know, curiosity, suffering love. All human beings have this and this is where their rights come from.
Absalom arrives and says, "Rav dough in my opinion, there are other animals with awareness." You agreed with him on this, but not your agreement that this is where his rights come from.
I will just point out that the idea that awareness is responsible for human rights was not created only in the head of Mr. Point. There are many others who think like him.
Here's another one for example:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/ViewEntry.aspx?EntryId=2859285
MouthHole, Absalom
Nature really did not create us with developed morality. Please look back in time. The more you look at an ancient population, the more you see, on the one hand, a person closer to nature, and on the other hand, less "moral". They must not have been vegetarian 🙂
Morality is a problematic concept. Is a lion that kills all cubs that are not his own immoral? What about a bunch of chimpanzees killing a single chimpanzee?
I also don't think there is a concept of absolute morality in humans.
We know that there are feelings like grief, justice and revenge in animals. I don't think there is any meaning to morality. It is impossible to say that a tribe of cannibals in New Guinea is less moral than a resident of Israel.
I explained why I don't eat whales. It's a decision I made after much thought, and I lived with people who ate both whales and seals. For years I have been working with people who eat dogs and monkeys - who am I to say that they are immoral?
I will come back to the issue of skin color - let's assume that 100,000 years ago everyone was "black". Both a Swedish nuclear scientist and a Tasmanian aborigine have undergone 100,000 years of evolution. I have no idea where you, the moral ones among us, have decided that the white is more developed than the black. I don't think you are racist, but think about what you are saying 🙂
If we accept the fact(?) that most of the animal food industry is cows, sheep and chickens, and that most of the animals would be genetic Hindus without which they would not exist at all, then if they were granted a short life full of joy in good conditions ending in a quick death with little pain, it is not terrible at all Yes, and I believe most chicks and calves would willingly sign it.
A bit reminiscent of the deal that many mercenaries accepted in the past, only better.
moo moo
"They did develop later" = They did develop earlier. Suri
Miracles, nature created us in such a way, that we would also have developed morals, a desire to harm as little as possible to genes similar to us. At least me 🙂 And I guess Absalom too, you know what? I think both you and my father. You're just trying to make excuses for why it's okay to eat a cow and not okay to eat a cat (and you're pretty bad at making unfounded excuses)…
The truth is that it is a matter of culture. If in our culture it was okay to eat whales, apparently you would also eat a beached whale.
Absalom, it is not customary to call different groups of people as races, the concept of race to divide people is wrong.
See:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%96%D7%A2_(%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D)#.D7.A9.D7.99.D7.A0.D7.95.D7.99.D7.99.D7.9D_.D7.98.D7.A8.D7.9E.D7.99.D7.A0.D7.95.D7.9C.D7.95.D7.92.D7.99.D7.99.D7.9D_.D7.95.D7.9E.D7.95.D7.A0.D7.97.D7.99.D7.9D_.D7.97.D7.93.D7.A9.D7.99.D7.9D
The group of black skinned 'negroids' did develop later. I don't understand why Nissim claims it is something immoral to say. that's a fact. But it may be that the concept of 'race' directly entails antagonism in him, please, call them 'groups' from now on
Absalom
We live in countless contradictions. The houses we live in are the destruction of nature. Our clothes are from plants we grew on land we destroyed. We use wood and stone and destroy nature's fire. We serve in the army to protect from other people who generally want to live in peace. We have a lot of conflicting social conventions. We invest a huge fortune in life extension, in complete contrast to nature. We move in the sea, in the air and even in space, places that were not meant for us. We invest resources in art and sports - both are a horrendous waste.
But again - this is how nature created us.
Absalom
I don't think like you. I'm not looking for exact definitions, because there aren't any. I'm trying to explain my position. And I'll say it again - call it intelligence, the size of the mind (this is an expression of Douglas Hofstetter and it's very beautiful to me), the relative size of the brain, or the ability to solve interesting problems. I mean it clearly, and I think most people feel the same way.
You are a little unusual - you believe that there are races of humans, and that certain races evolved after other races. And after that you call me immoral. I am so far from understanding you 🙂
You wrote "You will not eat the retarded child and the leviathan that came up on the beach because they are helpless." - And I already asked you not to put words in my mouth. can you try please I said exactly why I don't eat them - because they belong to the species I decided I don't eat. And I also explained to you what my reasoning is for eating a certain species. You must lose putting up straw men - it's a bit ridiculous...
By the way, I eat very differently from my parents. I agree that a great many people get their logic and morals from their parents. This is how nature created us.
From Out'Hall I answered you too, wait until you are approved.
Nissim, the contradiction in your position, caused you to abandon the criterion you yourself defined:
"Intelligence scale" or Shichli IQ. Now it's suddenly a "scale of soul size". How do you define the size of the soul? In the amount of love or altruism? You will be forced to be a cannibal under this definition 🙂
I did not say that the white man is better, but that he developed later than the black man. There is a reason why they are both defined as two races, and not red-haired and black-haired as different races.
You will not eat the retarded child and the beached leviathan because they are helpless.
What do you think the animals of the industrial economy are, if not helpless? Or an animal in the wild in front of a shotgun and a telescope.
But I understood you: "I don't eat certain species [why like that], and that's the end of it for me." That is, it all comes down to the conditioning you received as a child from your parents and society as to whether people are really good or bad, harmful or helpful.
From Out'Hall you are presenting the same position of miracles only in a more shiny wrapper of neo-Darwinism. This is the same cover that I call the mental buffer that is required to do something immoral. The use of scientific and clean jargon to describe the act does not make the crime any less heinous and primitive.
It is interesting that the feature you describe as a genetic barrier did not prevent the ancient world from enjoying cannibalism all over the world and even cultures that enjoyed human entrecote until the 19th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
Despite the cover using scientific language, you end up honestly summarizing the decision with a 'bad feeling'.
You don't really see a calf, you see an unidentified biological bone from the author, unlike the carrot. And they are both silent, why would you feel bad?
You are making the whole sentence on the plate with biased information.
Your problem is the starting point. You lack the possibility to test the feeling under adequate and fair conditions for the animal. Therefore, regarding sympathy and identification, see my penultimate response to miracles
https://www.hayadan.org.il/between-naturalism-and-animal-saving-0405149/comment-page-5/#comment-519717
Absalom
If you were listening you would understand my position. I'll say it again, not for your sake, because you only pull out the parts of the sentences that suit you anyway.
My opinion is this. There is a "scale of soul size" that depends on gender. Humans are at the top of the ladder. Sand is at the bottom. Everyone decides for himself where he is allowed to hit a ladder. I put the limit after species like monkeys, sea mammals, dogs and cats and maybe a few more. Whoever is shorter, I have no problem eating him. There are of course other conditions, such as if it is an endangered species.
The white man is just as developed as the black man. The very fact that you differentiate between them shows something about you my friend. Let's hope this shows a lack of understanding of evolution….
Regarding the retarded child. The reasons I don't eat it don't depend on morality. I also don't eat a beached whale that will die sooner or later. I also don't eat an enemy soldier that I killed while attacking my family. I don't eat certain species, and that's the end of it for me.
About the kangaroo. Again, you found a quote that fits your opinion, that's all. For tens of thousands of years there have been no large predators in large areas of Australia. In these areas, kangaroo species have caused the extinction of other species. Leave, why go far. There are also invasive species in Israel that harm other species. Killing them works for the benefit of the other species.
However, it is not so related to our discussion.
Our discussion focuses on the issue of murder. It's a phrase you use a lot. Doggery, as long as you look at me as a murderer, I ignore the other things you say, even though many of them are true.
Pushed into discussion again… 🙂
Just putting here an article from 100 years ago Shah Isimov. Very interesting and he also records what he thinks about foods and the impact on the planet.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-asimov-planed-for-the-negev-in-2014-2712137/
In addition, in Absalom's argument with Nissim, first of all, Nissim, it's already really frustrating that you don't answer Absalom's question.. "Why not eat retarded humans?"... Kudos to Absalom's patience for being willing to ask this question over and over again...
The truth is that I also eat meat, and I answer myself (and I'll help some miracles along the way) to this question like this: 'Pierce's formula'. I don't test the intelligence and awareness of my food (there are many who eat squid, not me, but apparently it's a matter of culture, I don't eat dogs either).
I (and I think most humans), have sympathy and identification with creatures that are genetically similar to us, such as humans and monkeys. With fish I have no bad feeling. Not even with carrots. They are too far from me in the evolutionary tree..
Why do you think it is immoral to kill a human being Absalom? Why is it immoral to kill a cow? Because you have a genetic affinity, and you feel that you can identify with Sybella. With carrots, you don't have that much genetic affinity... that's why you think less about carrots..
Therefore, my friend, I am not ready to eat a retarded child and killing a cow is not considered murder. A cow, genetically far from us...
I see calculations by IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute (see on Wikipedia)
Calculations by Prof. Research, and Slav Smil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaclav_Smil
and calculations of the United Nations environment program
The link to this report is on the website of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
But they are the data my father.
It is not expected that such 'calculations' will be done by a vegan site?
Father, you are again completely wrong in your data:
According to recent research by IFPRI, the global meat industry "may find itself in a position of competing with poor people for cereals" and other grains used as feed stocks for farmed animals. As much as 80% of the global soybean crop and 40-50% of the annual corn crop are fed to cattle, pigs, chickens, and other animals used in agriculture, in large part due to grain consumption facilitating rapid weight gain, which allows industries to slaughter animals in less time.
The use of grain for animal feed is an extremely inefficient use of food. Typically, 3 kg (6.6 lb) of grain is needed to produce just 1 kg (2.2 lb) of meat. Protein conversion inefficiencies compiled by Distinguished Professor Vaclav Smil in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba clearly show that depending on animal products for protein is not the most efficient use of resources. According to his research, chickens fed a diet of corn and soybeans can only utilize 20% of the protein present in those grains, meaning that 80% is simply wasted; for pigs, 90% of the protein they are fed in grain is lost. Most of the energy farm animals consume from grains and other sources of food is used for metabolic processes or for forming bones, cartilage, and other non-edible parts (offal), as well as feces.
According to the UN Environment Programme, "stabilizing the current meat production per capita by reducing meat consumption in the industrialized world and restraining it worldwide to the 2000 level of 37.4/kg/capita in 2050 would free an estimated 400 million tons of cereal per year for human consumption.” That is enough food to satisfy the annual caloric needs of more than 1 billion people.
In a growing world in which nearly 1 billion people are already hungry, animal products represent an extremely wasteful choice of nutrition.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/HSI–The%20Impact%20of%20Industrialized%20Animal%20Agriculture%20on%20World%20Hunger.pdf
Nissim, you listed the tree for the evolutionary development. I just added the continuation of the evolutionary development. The white man did develop later and so did the Goddess. I never for a moment claimed anything with moral value about this tree. You're the one who gave the moral reed about murder.
We talked about her breathing and whether it's okay for her to eat rodents. Of course, it cannot do otherwise and is part of the ecology.
You decided, for known reasons, to ignore the first part and focus on the second part.
My discussion and yours centered not on ecology but on morality. Animals do many 'immoral' things. But they cannot do otherwise and they are not hypocrites.
If a person does something immoral and says he cannot do otherwise, he is sent for psychiatric treatment. Let's close this niche.
Well, like with the hippopotamus you tell me half a story about the kangaroo
The Australian rangeland environment is fragile and easily degraded. Kangaroos have evolved as part of the Australian ecosystem and, with their soft feet, cause no environmental degradation at natural population levels. However, kangaroo populations have increased dramatically since European settlement in these areas due to the introduction of European farming methods and, for this reason, carefully controlled harvesting is required.
Miracles, it means a lot that you are not ready to answer the question.
You left the legal terminology right at the beginning of our discussion. It took time, but in the end a very clear criterion was set: "intelligence scale" IQ Shichli.
What is the difference between a retarded child and a calf, one of which you call murder and the other killing?
Regarding the description 'murderer', note that the criterion you cling to is the one that defines you as such.
Absalom
You did not add to my knowledge in any field. This is not the first time that vegetarians think I am a murderer - and do not understand the definition of the term they are using. Even if we choose to understand the concept of murder as a moral concept, you have no right to morality. The fact that you think you are more moral than me is beautiful, but that does not make it true.
Man is also a layer in ecology, including eating meat. I certainly agree that there are serious problems that result from damage to the environment - but the problem is the damage to the environment and not the actual eating of the meat. Australia has a huge surplus of kangaroos, and eating them only contributes to the ecology.
You wrote "the white man evolved later than the black man" - this is a racist and stupid statement. The white man (not that I understand what that is…) is developed just like the HIV virus: both are products of 3.5 billion years of evolution, each on a different track. I never thought that skin color indicates a level of development...
Killing a person under certain conditions is murder. Killing animals is not murder, even where this killing is illegal. That's how it is in the law, I didn't set it. There are places where it is allowed to kill a person and there are places where it is forbidden to kill a cow. It's all about rules.
You want to be a vegetarian - great. Do you think it is immoral to kill animals and you want to preach against it? I definitely get it. Most of your arguments are really to the point (cruelty, damage to the environment and health).
But - set limits please. I'm not a murderer. And if you think so and you don't hurt me then you are a hypocrite.
Israel, I have a feeling that Absalom would not change much if the ship was 10 times wider, and each calf would have a grass area in the area of a dunam. He will want to prevent the poor from eating meat, and again he forgets that the cow digests cellulose for us in its meat and milk, because otherwise we would have to increase the areas of the fields beyond the capacity of the earth, when man only uses grains that are a small percentage of the volume of wheat - and no - the example of corn is an example Deformed that should have disappeared from the world. In Israel I do not believe that animals are given food that humans could eat.
The hand of the case and a response from last night that is awaiting confirmation (it has links to several examples) which is an addition to my last response to you, even more relevant with your last response. We will wait for you to be approved.
I am not saying and thinking that you are a fundamentally bad person/in every field. But until now you acted because of ignorance on the subject. Not that I'm a religious person, but the terms deliberately and inadvertently catch on here. Because now that you know everything, your action is no longer under the category of an oversight.
It is absolutely ethical to treat any living creature. It is possible to go further: the Geneva Convention is emphasized by one of its clauses which states that wounded enemy soldiers must receive medical treatment. A soul can't help but hunt rodents. Its operation also does not destroy the ecology. On the contrary, it is part of the ecological balance. Even saying 'some' is not correct. She herself is a layer of the ecology.
You forget to add more rubrics:
The white man developed later than the black man, the educated man is more developed than the primitive, vegetarians have a higher IQ than meat eaters. And so on.
The arbitrary capping of the value of life that you give to the chronological scale of the evolution of species is nothing new. From there the assigned 'science' grew - eugenetics and its consequences.
You're just ranking according to the Shichli IQ scale again. Answer the question please:
What is the difference between a retarded child and a calf, one of which you call murder and the other killing?
Israel / Absalom
I have no argument that morality requires preventing all possible suffering from animals. I have treated dozens of injured animals throughout my life, which involves a considerable financial expense and even considerable personal risk (rabies, snakebites, claws of birds of prey, etc.). Is it moral to take care of an injured animal and return it to the wild so that it kills hundreds more innocent field mice, is it moral in your eyes?
Absalom - please, don't underestimate my intelligence, it's enough for me that you call me a murderer. It is not difficult to think of an intelligence scale with humans on one side and bacteria on the other. "Every person knowledgeable in the field" sees that it is possible to rank: human > chimpanzee > lemur > pigeon > lizard > fish > jellyfish > hydra > amoeba > bacterium. You know that too.
Absalom - it is you who allowed our blood, we are murderers in your eyes - after all, killing one meat eater will save many other lives, right?
Addendum to my last response to miracles:
As I mentioned in my first response to the article. Most people know the animals that are enslaved in the industrial economy only according to these terrible conditions and then commit confirmation bias which indeed animals are not 'equal' or 'smarter'. The negro in slavery and the Jew in the ghetto also do not represent themselves and their 'wisdom'.
Here is a rather ironic example: a family who happened to have the opportunity to see how a calf really behaves without the stress, suffering, constant threat and helplessness (it was their pet). They come to the conclusion that they don't eat cows anymore. See their pet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_1eg8PIaw8
This is definitely progress, now they just have to see how a chicken behaves under the same conditions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1sTIzh-Mqw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RcF4cwBn8U
or a goose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLv-XHhzP84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfKJ1DpL0uU
Father, with this definition as a criterion of what to eat, in that moment you became legitimate to put your throat and the throat of your children under the butcher's knife.
Nissim, what is your definition of 'smarter'? The ability to solve problems? emotional intelligence? consciousness? Or your conditioning through Hollywood or circuses on animals with human personalities? (Flipper the Dolphin, Save Willy, a monkey in the circus with a clown hat and a quiver).
What is the difference between a retarded child and a calf, one of which you call murder and the other killing?
So you are willing to take the life of a cow on purpose, knowing that you have (consciousness, emotions, will to live, etc.) and you feel it is moral? Either you feel it is immoral but you don't care or you do care (like the Inuit) but there is no choice and no other option.
It is important to mention that the cow that we are now discussing and you are willing to take its life so that you can eat it, is not a hypothetical cow. She is the poor cow who was born in hell and her whole life in the industrial economy until the end of her life at the age of 3-5 (natural life expectancy 20). We are not talking here about an animal in the wild that lives its life and is hunted by Inuit and has the possibility to escape. And still the Inuit call this act of hunting immoral.
That's what I was asking, if we're back to discussing people being plants or something new you want me to answer.
I certainly do not avoid:
You are of course not talking about clinical death, but the living systems do work on their own.
It depends on whether the person wrote in his will that this is what he wants (like disconnecting from the ventilator) or his family members want it.
There is a significant percentage of returning from vegetative state in the first year
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state#Recovery
It's all about the right to choose, miracles. I am even in favor of people who are fully conscious but live in physical suffering without hope and want us to kill them (Voluntary euthanasia). Which is legal in several countries in Europe and the USA.
my father
From my side you eat air, breathe water and drink steaks if that's what you want.
For my part, you can also reverse the order, like most humans.
Just don't be cruel to animals. Is that so much to ask?
Israel and Absalom, as you know, plants and animals have a common ancestor. Maybe we'll go get some air? https://www.hayadan.org.il/sea-anemone-half-plant-half-animal-2703146/
: )
As 200 years ago, today ships loaded with thousands of dangerous creatures make the long and gruesome journey. Thousands of tortured souls will not last and die on the way.
So - the creatures were black people, many justifications were given to their bitter fate (see the punishment of Ham ben Noah).
The ports of departure were in Africa. Unloading - in America.
Today the creatures are cattle heads. Ports of departure in Australia. Unloading - in Israel.
Absalom
I did not understand your question. I am willing to eat a cow, knowing that I have. I don't eat carnivores, because their meat is less good for us (and there are cases where it is poisonous). And I'm not ready to eat "smarter" animals - like sea mammals and monkeys.
Everyone puts the limit where they think is right.
And you did understand mine - we know there are people without any consciousness. There are brain injuries that mean that all the brain is able to do is control vital systems, such as the heart and breathing. In EEG (and especially in fMRI) you see that there is no "thought". Are these allowed to be killed?
And what about animals that have no consciousness? Are they allowed to eat?
To answer your question, can I give an example of a person without consciousness? Or is it a repeat of the story of the people who are plants without any chance of healing?
You didn't say the cow has a will to live, which is part of the cognitive dissonance. You are welcome to show me a nature film in which the cow/impala/buffalo, etc., do not run away from the predator and/or fight for their lives to escape.
There is a famous video from the Kruger Nature Reserve in South Africa where lions and a crocodile are fighting over a calf they have caught and the whole herd, with all the risk involved, gathers courage and comes to save it and attacks the lions. (If you haven't seen it, it's something something. Battle at Kruger on YouTube)
I am interested in hearing your answer to the question I asked.
Absalom
I never said "will to live" about a cow...
Let me ask you a question - there are people without consciousness. Do you think killing them is not murder?
You still haven't explained to me the difference between the retarded child and the calf? And why one is to murder and the other is to kill. Especially since you agree with the assertion of consciousness in animals.
Until then, you are definitely in the niche of murder if you take the lives of sentient beings. The thing is, it's not a sign of Cain, you can stop today, but you don't feel like it. Instead of fearing being called a slave trader, set the niggers free.
Without the cognitive dissonance your authentic sentence should be:
'Obviously the cow has consciousness and emotions, and she feels joy, pain, sorrow, fear and the will to live. And I feel it's moral to kill her to eat her even though I don't have to.'
Absalom
I'm just looking at what Yurofsky says, and what you say too. you call me a murderer As soon as you say it, you make it so that other people may listen to you, and act to solve the problem. That is, to kill me, and like me.
I guess that's not your intention - that's why I think what you're doing is stupid.
Regarding the consciousness of animals - I have no doubt that you are absolutely right. It is clear that animals feel pain, sorrow, fear and jealousy for example. I still don't think it's immoral to eat meat. that's it.
Please Nissim, explain to me what is the difference between a retarded child and an animal? Except that an animal can function on a daily basis. I claim that there is no difference and that both should be treated with love and respect. You have to prove the positive/different.
(I probably need to recycle links) Regarding animals, what does science and its observations say?
"Morality and thoughts have always been seen as what distinguishes man from other animals. But two decades of observations, laboratory experiments and neurological studies have led zoologists and neuroscientists to declare: evidence of consciousness, empathy, quasi-human emotions and even a sense of justice has been found in animals. In fact, human justice is probably born in nature"
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3607826,00.html
Regarding the hungry cheetahs and people who are plants without any chance of healing, I will answer an answer that I am sure commenter Volking will also agree with:
Why not? If the person wrote in his will that this is what he wants (like disconnecting from the soul machine) or his family members want it with good intentions, who are you to determine what to do with their own flesh?
In fact, if you search the Hebrew Wikipedia for the term 'sky burial', you will find that it is a burial ceremony that does take place in Tibetan Buddhism.
Nissim I didn't know you were interested in researching vegetarianism and IQ. good to know !
I am sure you will be happy to know that this topic has already been researched and it has been published in respected journals. I'm less sure you'll be happy to know you're ignorant.
Mental age and IQ of predominantly vegetarian children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1980
IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study, British Medical Journal 2007
Variables Associated with Cognitive Function in Elderly California Seventh-day Adventists, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1996
Absalom
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm... you wrote "In the most obvious case, what difference is there between a child with retardation and an animal"... you are the one who does not differentiate between them!!! Not in the fact that you reduce the value of that child, but in the fact that you increase the value of the animals. Let's assume that there is a difficult year in the Serengeti and the cheetahs are unable to find enough food for their cubs - shouldn't these cheetahs be fed, let's say, to people who are plants without any chance of healing??
As I said - vegetarianism changes people's minds...
You are twisting my words, I said exactly why it is forbidden to eat humans. And as for Assaf Rosenthal, he did not write that people should be completely vegetarian but more vegetarian than today, and there are countries where the rate of vegetable consumption is lower than in Israel and there the dosage really needs to be changed but it is absolutely impossible without meat.
See another article by Assaf https://www.hayadan.org.il/meatless-monday-0911138/
https://www.hayadan.org.il/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%95-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-2/
Absalom
You are confirmation of an interesting theory - vegetarianism makes a person talk nonsense ....
So have some juicy entrecote and get some IQ back. Your comments are getting embarrassing 🙂
Walking, I do not rule out. But see my father's thunderous reaction.
According to Avi the only element that is important is essential substances for the body. If so he should be in favor of cannibalism as well, there are many abortions of fetuses and it is juicy, clean and super nutritious meat, and in general there are too many non-contributing people in the world and it is possible to eliminate them in a humane way and allow their meat to the third world. In the most obvious case, what difference is there between a child with retardation and an animal? It's a shame for the resources this child consumes and the DTP it releases into the air, it could be a quality protein for meals in the cafeteria of the Weizmann Institute for our best scientists.
So now the degree of decomposition of plant material is also bothering you, I have a little secret to reveal to you - eat plant food directly so that you don't have to break down meat material whose protein is more difficult to digest.
According to what you claim, eating fish is the most unhealthy. I don't remember fish eating grass.
Abi, although you are the administrator of the site, there is a limit to the level of twisting facts: am I endangering a billion children or are you?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/call-for-people-to-be-more-vegeterian-220912/
We are dealing with a religious fanatic almost like a "true skeptic" who wants to deny a billion children basic food because their parents earn less than a dollar a day and will not be able to buy the quinoa, which by the way will not have enough land to grow it.
In addition, maybe the crazy people who did the presentation with the cats in Yarakon Park don't know - but it is not nutritionally worthwhile to eat carnivore, but only vegetarian animals such as cows and chickens, therefore there is no advantage in eating carnivorous animals such as cats, dogs and humans, because the decomposition of the plant matter in them He is already second rate.
Yes, why not? What's wrong with that Absalom?
The organs of the human body also have essential substances for the body. Perhaps we will open an option with the Edi card to donate to the underprivileged, organs for grilling on Independence Day.
First of all, beef also has essential substances for the body. Indeed from the environmental point of view (carbon dioxide) it is better to eat poultry or fish.
Of course, I may be wrong about American history and politics. After all, I've only lived in America for 30 years, watch a little TV every day, listen to a little radio, and have only taken a few classes in American history.
After all, discussions like which language help to strengthen awareness of the suffering of animals. I stopped eating beef after an article in Hidan, and I will support any body that tries to reduce the dimensions of the animal massacre.
Miracles
I don't know, it seemed that Israel thought it had to do with sentiments
But I said this is not the place to talk about it so I'll stop from now on
walking dead
The US is extremely open about its reason for supporting Israel - influence in the Middle East. A secondary reason is the strong Jewish lobby, but the strength of this lobby comes from the desire to be present in the Middle East.
Does anyone really think otherwise?
Israel
You referred to the American Civil War Wikipedia page so at least read it before you preach to me about my knowledge of American history.
You want to believe in your interpretation regardless of the historical facts, fine, enjoy, there's nothing to argue about. The sentiment may be what it is, the historical facts are something else. If the secession had not broken out into war, slavery would have continued as usual in the southern states for some time, and the resolution of the sentiment would have been settled one way or another at a later time. The war started due to the withdrawal and the attempt of the south to establish its own independent government. The North saw it as a rebellion. Fairly standard maintenance of governmental authority (for example: what do you think will happen if some of the eastern regions of Russia declare independence from Russia and start taking over military bases in their territory?). You want to see it differently, please enjoy, I don't think it will affect your quality of life.
Sorry, but I will not go into the section of the motivations of the USA's support for Israel, even though it seems to me that there is a complete lack of agreement between us on this matter. It's simply a discussion that is no longer really, really related in any way to the topic of the article or the discussion. Maybe on occasion following a relevant article.
The proposals are a good start, although they probably won't satisfy the vegan representatives, but how do you convince the general public to change their attitude, and is it possible to achieve sufficient production under these conditions without harming the rest of the environment at the expense of it.
In my opinion, a change of mind is more important than supervision and enforcement. Two things that fail non-stop when there is no consciousness to support them. See the value of Prohibition (if we are dealing with American history).
Israel
I find it a bit offensive to link slavery in the world with cruelty to animals. First of all, there is a lot of slavery in the world today, and the US does nothing against it. There are about 30 million slaves in the world today, and the US economy greatly benefits from this situation (as well as Israel's economy).
Regarding the 4 ideas you brought up regarding animal cruelty - I support 100%.
Wookie
It seems to me that you are not properly versed in American history.
For example you write:
"The debate about slavery was about the desire of the northern states to limit the expansion of the territories where slavery would be allowed."
Ok, but because of an argument you don't retire and go to war. The British fought with military force the terrible slave trade years before the war, and the sentiment grew stronger in the US especially after the publication of "Uncle Tom's Tent". This despite the fact that the economic logic is of course to continue supporting slavery.
If you investigate, you may find that the same sentiment is the main motive behind US support for Israel, even though all economic and political logic would prefer support for the Arabs.
The comparison to the fight against the holocaust of animals is obvious: they don't have the strength to fight for their rights either, and yet we, who have the power, want to put a moral and financial support on ourselves to alleviate their suffering.
Suggestions:
1. Eliminate the battery coops - hens are raised in open and fenced areas under supervision.
2. The elimination of the merbak calf industry and the fattening of the geese.
3. Humane and quick slaughter as possible (guillotine?).
And another priest and priest. The main thing - supervisory and enforcement powers.
a question
Does anyone remember The Matrix (the movie). Was what the machines did there to people moral?
For those who don't remember, then the machines used people as batteries in energy farms to survive after their energy source was blocked by humans.
The science of cherry picking. Indeed you are not talking about the individual, he is talking from your throat or your fingers on the keyboard in the present case.
Israel
The reasons I am talking about are not hidden. Lincoln, with all his opposition to slavery, did not demand before the war from the southern states to end slavery in their territory. If it weren't for the retirement, war would not have broken out. Maybe slavery would have continued, maybe it would have stopped in political ways, maybe another war would have broken out. At that moment it was not the reason for the war. It's not that slavery wasn't a factor, but it wasn't the deciding factor.
The war broke out to prevent the dissolution of the Union. Perhaps if the war had not broken out for this reason, two countries (or more) would have been created, one with slavery and the other not, and a war would have broken out between them to free the slaves, then it could be argued that the reason for the war was the freeing of the slaves, but historically it did not happen that way.
Together with the famine and other hardships, the threshold of those who perished exceeds the million, but it is not improbable that many of those who perished from hunger and other hardships were not white. (Almost half of the residents of the south were slaves and the poor usually suffer more from hunger and the like)
"Ready to support the fight for more humane conditions for animals?"
Definitely. I just don't know what the solution is and how to do it.
Father, the denial and guilt forces you to be very cynical and superficial about this.
Not even for a moment did I talk about the individual Yurovsky. All links to scientific data were data and conclusions from mainstream sources. We both know that.
The concept of 'spiritual guidance' or 'spiritual program' is also used by the Israel Prisons Authority and by academics who study the results of the program:
"In light of the findings, it can be assumed that there is a relationship between therapeutic intervention through a spiritual program and an increase in the sense of coherence, an increase in the meaning of life and a decrease in the intensity of negative emotions among drug addicts. These marital and emotional changes were more significant and their intensity was stronger than personal changes that were related to receiving social support, or the time of being clean from drugs. The research findings point to the importance of combining a spiritual program in the recovery process from drug addiction"
http://www.antidrugs.gov.il/download/files/הערכת_12_צעדים_בקרב_אסירים_-_גילה_חן_-דוקטורט.pdf
Wookie
Just for trivia, from Wikipedia:
"The American Civil War (English: The American Civil War) was a civil war that took place in the United States in the years 1861-1865. 11 states in the southern United States that support slavery have announced their withdrawal from the United States."
One can of course argue about hidden reasons, but there is no doubt that the election of Lincoln, who opposed slavery, was the trigger.
"Approximately 620,000 martyred soldiers and an unknown number of casualties among the civilian population."
Estimates are that, together with the famine and other hardships in the south after the war, the total number of dead exceeds one million.
And that's only in the Civil War.
Ready to support the fight for more humane conditions for animals?
The word spiritual guidance sounds like New Age, not science, just like Yurofsky's veganism.
Israel
"What then was the main reason for the outbreak of the civil war if not slavery?"
It was more a matter of maintaining the unity and centralization of government. There was no dispute at the time as to whether states that held slaves could continue to do so. The debate about slavery was about the desire of the northern states to limit the expansion of the territories where slavery would be allowed.
"How many whites died in the struggles for the liberation of blacks in history if only in the civil war and its results about a million whites died?"
Good question, but I don't think the Civil War dead can be counted as dead for freeing the black slaves. (What's more, even if you count them, about half of them supposedly fought against the liberation of the slaves.) (The number, by the way, is in the region of 600,000 plus)
"And does it even matter to the discussion?"
The truth is it's not so maybe we should stop 🙂
I sent a second time without links and it was swallowed. Shoin
Miracles, I also call a duck by its name - duck. As long as you don't see that it's murder, you live in denial.
"Your" non-violent approach is responsible for the suffering and death of animals on an unimaginable scale.
Which vegans physically harmed Tel Aviv? I read that they just put cat carcasses on their BBQ in Yarakon Park and grilled them. And the public physically attacked them. A beautiful lesson in hypocrisy.
The food in the prison wing was all vegan. As I wrote earlier: a combination of compassionate food and spiritual guidance created the change.
There are no vegans in India. And maybe 30-40 percent are vegetarians. I was in India for several years and I agree with the conclusion of Kushwat Singh (a well-known intellectual in India):
In the words of the Indian writer Khushwant Singh, "nine-tenths of the violence and unhappiness in this country derives from sexual repression".
As for the hippopotamus, I'm not a zoologist but with animals there's always a reason
Hippopotamuses are among the most dangerous animals on earth because they are known to charge humans when threatened. Unfortunately, since their habitat is mostly gone, they are forced to forage among crops, which in turn causes them to come face to face with angry farmers. It is during these interactions with humans, as well as unwary fishermen, that hippos and humans come together, a situation that will almost always end in death. Despite its speed, size and aggression, the hippo is no match for a human with a powerful gun, so it's usually the hippopotamus that loses its life.
I did not find your response either in the blocks or in the deletions. Try again, the WordPress system has a mind of its own, maybe it shouldn't be eaten either?
Absalom
Comments are blocked when there are many links - a known problem.
Miracles, I sent a reply but apparently it's stuck.
Avshalom R. 2
As long as you happen to it "murder" you are not in the right direction and you will not get support, certainly not from me. Your attitude is violent, and it results in vegans of all kinds physically harming those who disagree with them. Just yesterday there was such a case in Tel Aviv.
Let me address what I sent me. First of all, this is an article in a vegan newspaper, and it doesn't seem to be based on any research.
Secondly, I would like to understand how the journalist concludes that the reason for the prison's success is precisely because the food (not all) is vegan. Third thing, whoever believes that a change in the menu results in a change in the rehabilitation percentage from 5% to 98% is perhaps a little naive...or a little stupid.
And let's assume that the content of the article is true (although I highly doubt its credibility) - it means that prisoners who eat vegan change their character in a radical way compared to other prisoners. Hmmmmmm…. Why are Indians some of the most violent people I've ever met? And it is interesting that the most aggressive animal in Africa is a vegan....
Wookie
What then was the main reason for the outbreak of the civil war if not slavery?
How many whites died in the struggles for the liberation of blacks in history if only in the civil war and its results about a million whites died?
And what does it even matter to the discussion?
I have no problem with opening wings. I have a problem with the absolute ban on the meat wing.
Miracles, according to me we should stop thinking in terms of violence and which animal to kill and eat.
And it won't happen to you until you change your menu and your worldview together.
A prison that opened a wing (prisoners could choose whether to be in it or not) but which included a program of only vegan nutrition and mental guidance showed very good results of what a vegan diet together with a change in spiritual perception can change in the human soul and behavior.
http://vegetarianspotlight.com/2011/vegan-diet-impacts-california-prison/
Nissim, what question did you ask that I didn't answer?
Regarding pain, again, you are confusing between physiological/neurological aspects of pain which are certainly primary and necessary for living life and all these mechanisms are basically biological and were created during evolution, and the mechanism of consciousness which is not at all related to this whole thing.
When you are in pain you experience pain in your consciousness, if you had no consciousness you would not experience pain.
The experience of pain is not related to the physical convulsions that occur as a result of pain for example, these happen because of neurological reactions that the brain produces. It has nothing to do with the experience of pain. And so you get confused. To experience pain you must have consciousness. And this (consciousness) exists only in humans.
Correction of a mistake, the food I don't like is called buckwheat, not oats.
point
You finally used the magic word "in my opinion" 🙂
The problem is that your opinion has been proven wrong. I asked you a question earlier and I understand you don't have an answer. I am not surprised, because this is an extremely difficult question. And the proof is that there are people who are not aware that others have consciousness.
They are called "little children".
I would really love to understand what makes you think that animals have no consciousness? Do you think they have no feelings? So you are wrong - they feel love, sadness, jealousy and anger. They also feel pain - and how do you know that? To differ from you a point - we are checking the issue. For example - we know that injured animals prefer food with painkillers than the same food without painkillers. And again, unlike you - here are sources for what I said:
Colpaert, FC, Tarayre, JP, Alliaga, M., Slot, LAB, Attal N. and Koek, W. (2001). Opiate self-administration as a measure of chronic nociceptive pain in arthritic rats. Pain, 91: 33-45
Danbury, TC, Weeks, CA Chambers, JP, Waterman-Pearson, AE and Kestin. SC (2000). Self-selection of the analgesic drug carprofen by lame broiler chickens. Veterinary Record, 14:307-311
If you want, I will explain the content of the articles to you in simple Hebrew. There are also articles that show sadness, love, jealousy, revenge, and other qualities that only... A strange person like you thinks that only these qualities are not there.
Absalom
So according to you - is it advisable to eat insects that are harmful to grain crops?
Israel
I thought you meant the American Civil War. But neither were millions killed there, nor was the freeing of the black slaves the cause of it.
Neko, how many times have I told you not to exaggerate? one million? 2 million?
I am not complicit in any crime. I worked for years with animals on the kibbutz, and I was never cruel to them. I have been traveling in a van for years because my spoiled dog (who is always with me) complains that the private is too small for him.
I try not to eat beef because animals are lovely animals. Fish yes. I have no intention of opposing the consumption of meat, only to improve the lives and manner of death of the poor animals, according to the subject of this article.
And speaking of Nazis: I believe the holocaust would have looked completely different if the poor Jews had simply been given fun but deadly hallucinogenic mushrooms, instead of being tortured to death.
Yes, if you really believe that animals have a conscious mind then you are complicit in murder. you are a criminal How is it that you give a hand to the terrible crime of cold-blooded murder while abusing animals like an industrialized and institutionalized Nazi that takes place in most countries on Earth?
I don't understand you or Nissim. After all, if animals have consciousness, it means that we are like Nazis for all intents and purposes.
In any case, in my opinion it is clear that animals have no consciousness, therefore there is no murder here. And the whole matter of cruelty is only towards our feeling and it must be kept that there is no cruelty to animals because our souls of humans are harmed by it.
Father, you have already left the stratosphere of rational and decent discussion. I understand you, I was also in your boat 20 years ago. I will conclude with a quote from Harvard Professor of Genetics and Health Sciences and Technology George Church
"I've been vegan off-and-on since 1974 when I was inspired by participating in an MIT nutritional study, and quite strictly since 2004. My four reasons have been: medical (cholesterol in fish & dairy), energy conservation (up to 20-fold impact), cruelty ("organic" animals are deprived of medicines that humans use), and risks of spreading pathogens (not just the flu)...Veganism is an issue for which personal and global love of life, health and wealth align. It's a pity to lose parts of our humanity and planet just due to a lack of recipes.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Church
"A dog has a canine soul, and this soul is unconscious."
You probably don't know my dog.
Do you really believe that "animals do not have a conscious soul and therefore do not suffer"? Or are you a little carried away with the philosophy?
Israel, your dog is to you what the doll is to the little girl. A pet is a kind of toy. But no matter how you treat the dog, I don't see the connection between it and the concept of consciousness.
The treatment I see humans give to dogs shows us that man is a dog's best friend.
A dog has a canine mind, and this mind is unconscious.
That's why I wrote: "Even the release of animals, if only from their lives of pain, sorrow and cruel death."
It is possible to eat meat even without keeping XNUMX-year-old calves without moving or compressing chickens cut off their beaks in batteries.
Clean up.. a lost soul like you. As someone who preaches against over-identification with cartoons, try to understand the difference between philosophy and reality. Do you have or have you ever had a family dog? Are you able to understand - or rather feel - that a dog is an integral part of the family just like the children?
there is. You are confusing something I warned you about. There is no connection between consciousness and behavior or niceness.
It's time to grow up. A child thinks that a doll has a soul and when he grows up he stops thinking so because he understands that the external form is not enough to define a soul, but he is still stuck with the thought that the dog has a consciousness due to the behavior.
What you don't understand is that it's all a projection that comes from a mistake. Animals did not have and have no consciousness and it does not matter how they will react when you put a mirror in front of their face. It has nothing to do with the concept of consciousness.
And the serious claim is that whoever thinks that animals have consciousness then is complicit in murder every time he participates in the celebration of the killing of animals.
In short, we need to stop with all these contradictions and understand that animals never had consciousness. Therefore killing animals is not murder at all.
But the dogs also, and I have a dog and he is very cute, eat meat (cats also eat meat). You can't change nature, and you won't be able to turn them into cows because they don't have the relevant internal organs just like a human.
Wookie
PA: The American Civil War.
Miracles
It is a well-known rule that what is allowed for pigs is not allowed for other animals.
clean up
When I wrote "and the beast is freed from the man" I meant what Nissim said.
Anyone who has a dog knows that it has a soul and a soul as small as a human being.
Most dogs are better than most people. Also more beautiful and noble. They are also always cute, unlike humans who are only cute as babies and children.
And many other animals too.
Yurofsky and a friend of his believers are not scientists, and I do not silence the truth. I am loyal to science, even if I am the last one on earth who is loyal to science and does not believe in some Torah superstition.
You want to starve billions of children to death, and you are talking about murder. be ashamed You probably don't understand anything about evolution - man is an omnivore, and there are things he does not digest, especially cellulose, the animals do this for him with meat, milk, eggs, and honey. If you don't like it, ask for a cow's stomach to be transplanted, and you can become a vegetarian. And really no one is preventing me today, but if you are even 5% of the population, it will be dangerous to go to the writers, and then the writers will stop bringing because they will get tired of your friends wreaking havoc on them. Just like Bibi ordered Lapid to silence the snoozers when you are few, how long will it take for you to really multiply.
I understand vegetarians who think that what they are doing is healthy, but still eat eggs and milk and therefore get everything they need, but brazen ones who want to change human nature by force - I have only seen this since Jurofsky started with his false brainwashing.
I have no problem denying superstition.
By the way, even the ultra-Orthodox have no problem finding a math expert who will deny evolution, they will have a hard time finding a real biologist.
Avi,
You wrote nonsense about "assertion and not proof" (really anti-science language, you should be ashamed).
If you eat one egg you have almost reached the recommended daily cholesterol intake.
In one egg you have 6 grams of protein, in 50 grams of quinoa there are 7 grams
An egg costs 1.2 NIS and 50 g of quinoa costs 2 NIS.
Who eats only quinoa or only eggs for protein...
A combination of grain legumes and mini beans gives you a complete profile. Don't eat just one type of vegetable either. For this I linked to the professor's article.
But I knew from the beginning that you were asking a question that you thought had no answer and you were playing games. But I still said we would treat him with respect and answer him politely because of the doubt.
I liked that you argue that stopping the wholesale killing of innocent lives is violence against society.
And after I showed that science is on my side: health, ecology, global warming, and also on the subject of consciousness, morality and emotions of animals, you call it superstition. Welcome father you can respectfully call yourself a denier.
No one is depriving you of your pint of meat and your torture eggs. But you will not silence the truth.
I think what happened is that everyone here has seen too many cartoons in which talking animals appear...
Grow up, animals have no consciousness. never was.
Israel
Haven't you read Animal Farm? 🙂
Israel
Sorry but where did you get that millions of white people were killed to free the blacks?
The emancipation of the black slaves was not done by black people but by whites - first the English, and then the northern states of the USA. Millions of white people were killed to free the blacks.
Even freeing animals, if only from a life of pain, sorrow and cruel death, will not make animals tired. We are only at the beginning of the struggle.
MouthHole
If he is joking - then it is a cruel joke.
I wonder what point he would see if he looked in the mirror? 🙂
Period, stop teasing our miracles 🙂
Miracles, it's okay, even a point understands that we're not that different from Shimfazant..
And in general he plays with you on the concept of 'soul' which for some reason he interprets as 'awareness'.
Although in my opinion certain awareness should also be lived, this can easily be seen by using a mirror 🙂
point
What is the source of what you wrote "when the truth is that animals have no consciousness and do not suffer and will not be able to suffer"?? Where did you read that?
In Wikipedia it is written that this is a claim and not a proof, long live the small difference, what's more the protein content is generally lower than in legumes. Anyway, how much does a kilo of quinoa cost? How many kilos do you need to eat so that the consumer has the same amount of protein as in one egg? In any case, your behavior is disgraceful, and it's really unpleasant to be around people like you. And unfortunately I also personally know some of them. You are just like the ultra-Orthodox, who want everyone to behave as they demand. It's not good for you to eat meat, do what you want, and even restaurants have a vegan option. What you want is to violently eliminate the non-vegan option and this is violence against society, which does not include only Adon Absalom, and not everyone believes in your specific superstition.
For example, I don't like porridge made from oats, seafood and lamb, because each of them has a smell that bothers me, will I firmly demand that these products stop being sold?
point
How do you know mine hurts when I'm injured? Think about it for a moment….
Miracles, you live in a lot of contradictions. If animals had a conscious soul then killing them would be considered murder.
Animals don't have a conscious mind, and it doesn't matter how much the dog glares at you. And despite the feeling that there is someone there, it's kind of like thinking that a doll with 2 eyes and even has feelings and needs, it's called personification.
When the truth is that animals have no consciousness and do not suffer and will not be able to suffer. Suffering requires a conscious experience of suffering, and not body movements or convulsions whose entire cause is biologically evolutionary, these movements have nothing to do with the concept of consciousness.
Ori
There are many reasons to eat much less meat. I don't think there is any debate about that. The debate that remains, in my opinion, focuses on several issues.
The first is that it is not at all clear that increased consumption of plants will not harm nature more than meat consumption. It's a scientific question and that's what the article here is about.
The second is that there are people who have to eat meat because otherwise their body will be damaged. My daughter became a vegetarian, and indeed it affected her health in a distinct way.
The third issue is the prevention of suffering to animals. Here, too, I don't think there is a fundamental debate between meat eaters and vegetarians.
The fourth issue is the moral issue. This is a complex philosophical question. I will only say the tip of the iceberg here: it is possible to imagine that everything has a soul, starting from a grain of sand and ending with a Gandhi statue. The soul I'm talking about is a projection of man onto that being. For example - I was very hurt when the mentally ill Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. These statues were built in the middle of the sixth century and were destroyed in 2001. For many people these are just stones. Everyone sets for themselves the limit of a soul, that is, they divide the sequence I described into two. One group is allowed to kill, and the other group is not. Some Jews, for example, think that non-Jews have no soul. Yurofsky on the other hand thinks that the bee has a soul. The truth is that it is not a dichotomy and the boundaries are not so clear, even in a certain person. There are vegetarians who will eat fish, and there are those who are against spraying the lettuce.
Anyway, that's my take on the matter.
Abi, quinoa has a complete amino acid profile (complete protein).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinoa#Nutritional_value
If you are asking out of interest and practice about a protein source for vegans on a daily basis, there is an excellent and detailed article by a professor of nutrition from the University of Massachusetts on the matter http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php
Dear Assaf and my father,
I have to agree with Adam here, even though you claim to represent the "scientific" side of the story, in my opinion this is a shallow and puzzling article in which your clear positions are expressed Assaf but are backed up with stupid claims that make every effort to ignore the moral problem and its solutions. Moreover, your usual attempt to present vegetarians and vegans as extreme people and vegetarianism and veganism as "Afna" is delusional on such a level, and here I have to agree with Yurovsky, although I disagree with his style, he would rightly compare the word "Afna" in this context to Against slavery or sexual exploitation or the war on the trade in organs as "apana".
Although I have great respect for both of you, based on the article and your comments, I get the unfortunate impression that, for you, a situation of "business as usual" in the livestock industry is the ideal and desirable situation and should be preserved. But if I was wrong and you are not cold and technical scientists and academics and you do understand the core of the social and moral problem which by the way has more negative environmental consequences than positive, why are you investing your energy in defending the current situation and not presenting solutions and alternatives to it?! A wise man once said: There are enough people who describe the situation as it is, few are those who describe it as it could be. Only those whose eyes are not in their head will be willing to ignore the fact that eating meat and animal products is accompanied by a lot of suffering for the animals, but you, instead of choosing the moral side and examining the pragmatic solutions, back yourselves with foolish justifications that tickle scientific claims. What does this matter of fertilizer have to do with agriculture?! Someone said that the holy goal is to eliminate the entire industry?! Let's even get to the point of preventing the unnecessary suffering of the animals in this industry, and what's more, there are other solutions for fertilization that don't involve suffering. And what about the stupid claim (forgive me) about a group of vegans on an equatorial island, the time has come for you to understand that the debate is not about what human nature was in the past but about what it can be in the present and in the future according to the conditions that are possible today. And finally, what does the solution have to do with dealing with a just distribution of food in the world, the way you chose to end your claim article only points to a misunderstanding of the problem and a repeated evasion of the world of academia and science from finding solutions and taking initiative and moral and social responsibility for a sustainable change of the existing situation.
I think that from the interview, even from a person who is quite sympathetic to the idea, Yurofsky came out as a violent maniac.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/.premium-1.2142275
Yurofsky is so successful that he brought you to cooperate with the cattle breeders in Israel and prevent the reduction of the tariff just as the ultra-Orthodox prevent the importation of non-kosher things into Israel, so you try to prevent the importation of meat to the whole world, and make it more expensive, and then claim that meat is more expensive than vegetables....
Dr. Dear Assaf Rosenthal, I really enjoyed the deep philosophical article. Really aspire.. or not?
The example of the island is so infantile, shallow and stupid that I was somewhat embarrassed.
It is clear that throughout history eating meat and animal food was necessary for our survival and the development of Homo sapiens, and of course the lake is important to certain countries in Africa or Asia. After all, we don't expect the inhabitants of a small village in northern Finland or an undeveloped town in Burma to eat only nuts and potatoes. Let them eat chicken, let them eat fish, the main thing is that they manage to survive. But in countries like the developed state of Israel, which has an abundance of everything, there is no longer the need to fish, raise cattle or poultry to provide the nutrients and survive. Eating meat has become like consuming drugs, most people simply cannot spend a day without some schnitzel or shawarma and are not even willing to think about the moment they will stop consuming meat.
Of course Gary Yurofsky is an officer, and I don't agree with most of his words. But he manages to convey the message in a certain way.
Absalom Give me one example of a complete plant-based protein.
And one more thing, at a certain time there was an ancestor of all animals and plants,
My detailed response is waiting for confirmation for several hours. Thanks
point
You are religious?
point
At least cite the source of the nonsense you say - even if it's a stupid and horribly mean statement.
The source is René Descartes - even 400 years ago this was a stupid and horribly evil statement.
My dog has a much bigger soul than some dogs I know. And only a complete idiot (like a certain commenter) would think that it doesn't hurt her when she is injured, or sick, or loses a puppy.
Stanislav Lev once said that a creature suffers if it appears to suffer. Have you ever seen a dog suffer?
Point - I have to choose between you and Absalom - I prefer a million times more extremism in his direction (that killing animals is "murder") - than your stupidity. You are a terrible person to me - even if you were just joking.
That's what I love about you, Neko. Always joking.
(What not?).
Oh miracles, I was expecting verbal sparring and that's what I got.
You clearly argued in your second comment: "Surely it is much healthier to be a vegetarian than to eat red meat at every meal. But the addition of fish, for example, and occasionally red meat, is even better." Come on, where is the research that it is even healthier to eat red meat occasionally than never?
what are you bringing me Studies on whether red meat is harmful or not, and also makes cherry picking glorious.
Due to the many studies that have found a link between red meat intake and colorectal cancer,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] the American Institute for Cancer Research and World Cancer Research Fund stated that there is convincing evidence that red meat intake increases the risk for colorectal cancer.[22]
All the information is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Potential_health_risks
Father, science is on my side on this one. You are the one who shoots an arrow and marks a target around it, all because of the habit of eating an animal that suffered all its life and was killed in a quarter of its natural life span. You are causing real damage with your habit and not only to yourself but also to the ecology, and to global warming.
Point, you really need to tell the truth, but based on observations and science and not wishful thinking:
"Morality and thoughts have always been seen as what distinguishes man from other animals. But two decades of observations, laboratory experiments and neurological studies have led zoologists and neuroscientists to declare: evidence of consciousness, empathy, quasi-human emotions and even a sense of justice has been found in animals. In fact, human justice is probably born in nature"
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3607826,00.html
A person who is complicit in mass murder and crime, unknowingly, is forgiven. Now all the information is on the table.
The truth must be told. Animals do not have a conscious soul and therefore do not suffer.
Absalom, why do I have the impression that the conversation with you is similar to an argument with a penitent who shoots an arrow and marks a target around him?
Absalom
"Removing the word 'isn' is a linguistic innovation that turns the original sentence upside down."
But it doesn't just turn over - it turns over twice, as it says: "upside down".
Or in Hebrew: read carefully what I wrote.
I did not understand. Are you looking for morals in the Torah?
Dear Israel Shapira, open your Bible and read Ecclesiastes XNUMX.
Dropping the word 'in' is a linguistic innovation that turns the original sentence upside down.
Another example is 'the righteous in his faith shall live' Habakkuk XNUMX:XNUMX. whose linguistic innovation 'a man will live by his faith' is a similar case
Absalom
"And the man is separated from the beast, because everything is vanity."
Without a doubt, you were right.
But in the hole, you didn't minute..
CEL: And the animal is allowed from the man.
Avshalom R. 2
My response to your rudeness awaits ….
Avshalom R. 2
Are you calling me a murderer? seriously? 🙂 At least I keep my opinion about you to myself. You are so hateful that you just ramble!!
Here are some articles - start reading!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=790996
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2010.01871.x/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540747
Finish these – there are many more…
Miracles, you wrote and invented nonsense in your first response to me "Are you aware of the damage to nature?" "Are you aware of the health damage?" which are scientifically refuted in my first comments.
so what are you doing? Writes things unrelated to your first claims and also invents more nonsense.
Bring a study that it is even better to eat some red meat than never.
Until then you are in the possession of an academic charlatan.
Now that you've realized that the legal argument doesn't hold water, you've decided to move on to the moral argument. Keep looking for mental concepts that will put a buffer between you and the simple fact that you are not ready to stop being complicit in the torture and mass murder of your innocent fellow animals.
I, unlike you, do not make up data. Here is the fact about Inuit and killing animals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_mythology#Anirniit
At least they have the honesty to admit to murder. You I guess will continue to do verbal juggling
I must point out that the comments are much more interesting than the article 🙂
I hope you will continue the discussion so that I can understand the subject a little more (yes, not the ideal place to study but...).
Avshalom R. 2
Too bad you don't pay attention to what the articles say. It is certainly much healthier to be a vegetarian than to eat red meat at every meal. But adding fish, for example, and occasionally red meat, is even better.
The second article does not talk about two subjects. The first is about the areas needed for food crops compared to meat crops. And the second is that you cannot withhold food from those who cannot grow anything.
I don't understand who put you to decide what is moral and what is not. Do you think eating meat is unhealthy? Don't eat meat. I don't see anything wrong with that. But to call meat eaters immoral is an audacity that has no basis. You don't even understand what morality is.
And the Inuit don't think of themselves as murderers. Only you think so. Be healthy 🙂 Like many ancient peoples, they love and respect nature - it has nothing to do with morality.
By the way Asaf, I understand that you grew up in a kibbutz, that explains a lot about your response to the issue of farm animals
http://www.mynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4367042,00.html
My friend, it's never too late...
Asaf, your article contradicts the scientific data and is refuted in every way. I wouldn't be proud of him.
Human societies have also developed slavery, enslavement of women, honor killing, sex with minors, castes, colonialism, collective punishment, racism, eugenics, religion, etc. You try to hide the feelings of guilt and giving your hand in the crime behind the collective screen and classic objectification of the victim.
The list does not deal with vegetarianism,
The list deals with the need to distinguish between "love of animals" and the need to preserve nature
And in the fact that many animal lovers are a barrier to nature conservation
and causes (out of love and good intentions) to harm wild animals
and in the natural environment.
The list deals with fanatical veganism (as opposed to vegetarianism) as it is presented
By the "Fant" Gerry .... who is ready to violently attack omnivores...
Whoever brings "research" and data from Wikipedia better check the reliability of the source,
Anyone who compares the needs of the world's population to the American market is selling
For the "culture" of consumption, a "culture" promoted by interested parties,
He should know that there are more hungry people in the world than Americans.
Those who take care of chickens, cows or pigs and farm animals,
He had better know that these are products developed by human societies,
True, it is necessary to treat them with "humanity" in order to "quiet the conscience",
But more than that to get better products,
Who thinks that the human population is about eight billion souls
can exist according to the "religion" of some Geri...
May he be perfumed...but...veganism...yuck!
Galigamesh, the starting point from which you claim the overhumanization of the animals in the farm, is incorrect
http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2005/03/cows-are-people-too.html
Also read about The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
Indeed Absalom over-personalizes the cow. Indeed, the cow would not currently survive in the wild without humans and I also agree with Miracles that killing animals should be separated from abusing them (and today almost every large company that sells animal food abuses animals for the sake of efficiency).
Yet,
I would like to focus on this discussion instead of running away (I would appreciate it if you wrote down the number of each section you refer to in your answer):
1) Does everyone agree that a more vegetarian diet will cost more in terms of the earth's surface? and therefore the sentence
"Over time the group grew and the natural environment cannot satisfy the needs of the human population. The natural solution would be the consumption of animal food products. But these are vegans. What to do?"
Not really relevant!
2) Do you agree that there are no health (or physical) problems today (of course, in the past, in certain places, people had to hunt) with a vegetarian/vegan diet?
And so the sentence - "but don't hesitate to diversify with animal products" is not really related..
(and as a side note, mention that red meat causes a lot of illness)
3) There wouldn't really be a problem with fertilizer even if the whole world were vegan...
4) "In most farms the animals get improved and good living conditions for the simple reason that good conditions make it possible to produce fine products" - is it clear to everyone that this is an unfounded and false statement? Or do you want references that prove the opposite?
5) I am interested now from a moral point of view, which races are we allowed to kill and which are not..
Is a horse not and a cow is? Isn't a dog and a pig yes? And what if a cat? And what if black people, they too were once considered less than human in many cultures, as were Jews, so how do you know when it is and when it is not?
Full disclosure: I eat meat too, although I'm thinking of stopping, I'm not entirely sure yet. I'm sure, but, if meat wasn't so tasty for me and also such a central food in my life, I would definitely stop.
Nissim, you follow the path of every cruel person who paints his victim - creates a mental buffer between himself and the victim by an arbitrary concept, and always the cruel is painted as superior.
The court does not represent the universal truth, but the customs of the time. Until 1865 you could kill your slaves (it's not legally murder) and still get reimbursed from the insurance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre
You are not Inuit and not a survivalist. Even the Inuit do not deny that it is murder, and pray to the soul of the hunted animal so that it does not take revenge on the tribe.
If you go to the links of my last comment, you will receive a scientific answer regarding the baseless argument "health damage" and environmental damage".
The American psychologist Gustav Gilbert interviewed the judges of the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, in an attempt to understand the source of evil. This is his conclusion:
"I told you once that I was searching for the nature of evil. I think I've come close to defining it: a lack of empathy. It's the one characteristic that connects all the defendants: a genuine inability to feel with their fellow man. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
It all boils down to one fact - you have no empathy for the animals in the industrial economy, except perhaps to pay lip service. (See the link in my first response to why most people don't) However, murder is still murder.
"For the case of the sons of men and the case of the beast, and one case for them-how much is this death, and one spirit for all; And the man is allowed from the beast, because everything is vanity." (Kohelat XNUMX:XNUMX)
Gilgamesh
I agree with a lot of what you say. But - how do you have the right to call someone "primitive"? Do you notice that you see yourself as better than him? Is the culture you live in necessarily better than the culture of certain tribes that survived thousands, even tens of thousands, of years?
Beyond that - a cow is much more efficient than us in converting plant substances into protein. Therefore, the price of veganism can be a great harm to nature. I'm not saying this as fact, but it's my (not entirely unfounded) feeling.
I have no doubt that we eat far too much meat, and I have no doubt that the meat industry is a pretty terrible thing. What are the problems that need to be addressed, and not some baseless "morality".
Absalom, you make an excessive personification of the cow. Miracles, regarding cultures that traditionally eat meat because they are primitive, they should be modernized anyway, it is not possible for humans to continue to engage in hunting when they are already so far beyond the food chain. Both to my father and to Nisim and to all the other defenders of carnivory, from a survivor's point of view, although the preachers of vegetarianism mislead the public, no matter how we turn it around when vegetarianism/veganism is purely not eating animal food and without the philosophies of organic and pesticide-free agriculture it is much more economical, even for the sake of Health is hard to attack veganism as it is possible to live a very healthy and vegan life. While veganism can be attacked from a public health perspective, a single person can decide to put themselves on a strict diet regimen, but how do you force millions of people to eat enough millet and spinach? How can I convince my son to replace his cup of chocolate with white beans? An aggressive transition to veganism will make a lot of people sick from it and therefore the consumption of animal food should be encouraged until there are better substitutes, but as a fool I allow myself to predict that in the future there will no longer be a meat industry as we know it today
Avshalom R. 2
If we are correct - then murder is a legal concept and does not apply to animals. We kill animals, we don't "murder" them. When we are too free with our language, we start to believe nonsense.
You must differentiate between the suffering caused to animals and eating meat.
Are you in favor of hunting - after all, in this way most of the animals in the world die anyway?
Do you think the Inuit have no right to live - because without meat they have no other source of food?
Are you aware of the damage to nature that will be caused if the whole world goes vegan?
Are you aware of the health damage that results from extreme hypothermia?
Point also understands that the cows are the result of the domestication of an animal that was once in the wild. This is the case with most of our food. What does this belong to the topic?
Children, where did the cow come from that today lives a life of slavery, rape, suffering, her children are taken from her immediately after birth to be slaughtered at the age of 1-3 months after isolation, and she is murdered at the age of 5 due to exhaustion (natural age is 20)?
Let's get to the point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs
If we didn't eat meat, there would be no cows. The Heparn exists thanks to the meat eaters.
What's more, when you look deeper, you discover that the cow is a vegetarian creature. And that means that beef is a type of plant concentrate...
Haha, my father is funny, your last comment has no basis, so I'll assume it's true, but I'll add a logical response even without any basis - although the US market is distorted, that doesn't mean it's not an example. All the markets in the Western world are becoming and becoming similar to the American markets
The United States is not an example, the market there is distorted.
Father, you are wrong on every point. I will direct you to sources that do not have a vegan agenda:
Regarding the area of the fields - animals confined in the industrial farm (including chickens) eat mainly grains. 80% of the corn crops in the US are intended for the animals
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html
Regarding adequate nutrition - read the professional statement of the American Dietetic Association from 2009
Not only is it sufficient for all stages of life, but also a diet that seems to prevent chronic diseases
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864
Regarding the cost of nutrition - lentils, grains and types of beans are cheaper than animal meat. No one builds a meal on nuts.
Regarding chicken-egg-energy. Of all the food options (grain, fruit, meat, egg, etc.), egg production is the most wasteful of all
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/webber-more-efficient-foods-less-waste/
No one steps into your plate and forbids you to eat animals. But don't expect there to be no pictures and warnings on the 'cigarette box'. What to do, we made progress.
Ronen
I suppose that eating meat is better than eating plants, in terms of utilizing the number of calories per unit area. Therefore, it is also good for animals that eat animals….
What nonsense and lack of knowledge. And besides, even if it's not possible to do 100% good, what's the point of hunger to do some and not eat animals and food that comes out of their bodies
There are a lot of ignorance on the vegetarian side as well, because they ignore the fact that 90% and sometimes even 99% of the plant is inedible by humans, whose body does not digest cellulose, and therefore feeding animals in these parts will really not change the area of the fields in any way and will only allow them to be used better And to reduce the prices of vegetables and grains.
There is no obstacle to reducing meat consumption, however, among the new religious people, milk, honey and eggs are also a criminal offense. A diet devoid of any animal component a. is not enough, b. Very expensive (nuts, for example), and not relevant to large percentages of humanity. The amount of food that one hen creates by laying an egg every day is much higher than that of an entire fruit-bearing tree, and she does it with a fraction of the space and energy - and of course very cheaply since she eats inedible parts of the plant for the humans who get this food by eating the eggs.
Let me help you Dr. Rosenthal. The contradiction between veganism and protecting the environment considering where the compost comes from is quite innocent, after all there are other sources of fertilization apart from the excrement of the animal products industry, it would be easy to adapt vegan kosher to fertilizer. The contradiction between moral veganism and protecting the environment is for the simple reason that every agricultural area almost inevitably robs other animals of living space, the problem intensifies when the moral vegan cannot afford that mice and grasshoppers were unjustly murdered for his buckwheat plate. If he chooses to eat food from fields where pest control was not carried out, then he will need much more space for a plate of buckwheat, space that will come at the expense of the shrinking natural environment in our world
I don't see a contradiction between preserving the environment and leading a moral life.
Veganism is not a religion: no vegan is afraid of "being punished" if he eats animal products.
The vegans I know are simply people with a high awareness of the suffering caused behind the scenes due to their eating habits.
Humans will stop relying on animals when tissue engineering creates the same product,
At first there will be objections, but in the end it is likely that this will be the deciding factor in the vegans' dream,
So yes there will be meat eating but not from my life,
I agree if the claim that we have reached where we have reached in the inhibitions of eating meat,
But the claim of the vegans is that there is no need today to live on meat, this claim needs to be answered if there is an answer,
People like Gary who call honey the vomit of bees, there's no way he'd be wearing leather or silk shoes,
That's what cotton is for, so your argument about this issue sounds weak because they are careful about the tip of iodine,
Regarding the signature of the deadly land of humans on the animal and plant kingdom there is almost no difference between
The vegan and the carnivore in the 2 cases the damage to the animal world is fatal, all our infrastructure systems the roads
The factory-house tracks cut through the bushes of life into fragments that actually do not allow for the ability to live
For other animals especially this is true for animals of our size,
When was the last time a buffalo roamed the city, lion, ostrich, elephant, rhinoceros, giraffe, etc.. not even in the book areas,
Even smaller ones, such as wolves, foxes, and wild cats, in most cases end badly for the animals,
Our living environment is sterile even for vegetarians and vegans. We do not share our living space
With animals (we are not talking about the house where we sleep, these are between the houses) except for domesticated animals and farm animals
which we use and small ones which we are unable to destroy
Mice Cockroaches Flies Mosquitoes,
I agree with the claim
Farm animals will almost become extinct as soon as humans stop relying on them if today there are about a billion cows and a billion chickens that can be defined as one of the most successful animals in terms of distribution from the moment man
stop using them they will almost become extinct because then they will be in the same situation where the other large animals are,
It is not clear to me what the vegans say about this, but I appreciate that they say that this is not life, this is only suffering.
Not surprised to learn that people who have made the intervention on the plate a religion are not ready to hear criticism.
For the most part I do agree with your articles, but I feel that the article was written more out of disgust with veganism than as a scientific report.
In the vast majority of cases, there is no contradiction between concern for food and veganism. It is possible to have farms where living beings are treated with respect and humanity.
Weird article.
What it will not be fertilizer. Do I have to explain to the ecologist what compost is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost
So the cotton, linen, hemp, etc. argument is stupid. But let's say that...
Nothing to wear? I have to explain to his honor that he likes to travel what are hiking socks (spandex, polyester, polypropylene), hiking jacket (brass), etc. made of?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fabric
Who are the animals of the industrial economy? (not a market reaction)
https://www.hayadan.org.il/meatless-monday-0911138/comment-page-3/#comment-455523
Not 'let's imagine' but let's scientifically estimate 9 billion meat-eating people on Earth in 2050
https://www.hayadan.org.il/call-for-people-to-be-more-vegeterian-220912/
And to paraphrase your favorite sentence:
The time has come that instead of controlling the animals for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the animals!
Very surprised to see that an ecologist shows such ignorance on the topic of world hunger. disappointing.