Is carnivorism ethical?

[cnm]

Is carnivorism ethical?​

No less ethical than eating plants. Plants have living cells which we destroy when we eat them. They have as much right to stay alive as have we.

 

[rupol2000]

In addition to many other things, you don't seem to know how biology works.

I know that "they" believe that interspecies crossing is impossible, but the definition of a species is precisely determined by the ability to cross and progeny. The wolf and the dog are very different, but they interbreed freely. Interracial crosses are far from always successful without special therapy, therefore, according to the dogmas of biology, people do not belong to the same species, right?

In addition, there are still intermediate options. Non-conceptional copulation can affect offspring, this is de facto recognized as horizontal transmission has been proven by reverse transcriptase.
There were experiments with crossing a zebra and a horse, which did not produce offspring but remained in heredity. Dog breeders consider a randomly mated bitch to be defective.

 

[rupol2000]

No less ethical than eating plants. Plants have living cells which we destroy when we eat them. They have as much right to stay alive as have we.

at least they have no sensuality and self-awareness

 

[cnm]

at least they have no sensuality and self-awareness

They certainly respond to stimuli, I wouldn't be as categorical as you. In any case they are alive, we destroy life when we eat them. Hardly ethical, one would think...

 

[rupol2000]

living

What means "live"?

 

[rupol2000]

They certainly respond to stimuli, I wouldn't be as categorical as you.

My TV also responds. Is it alive?

 

[cnm]

I know that "they" believe that interspecies crossing is impossible, but the definition of a species is precisely determined by the ability to cross and progeny. The wolf and the dog are very different, but they interbreed freely. Interracial crosses are far from always successful without special therapy, therefore, according to the dogmas of biology, people do not belong to the same species, right?

Jesus.

 

[cnm]

My TV also responds.

Not to stimuli. Nor is your tv dead when switched off.

 

[rupol2000]

Not to stimuli.

It's a bullshit. Any external influence is a "stimul"

 

[cnm]

So anyway, are we now talking degrees of ethical eating?

In my opinion, this cannot be justified by logical means, because if you can eat someone else's meat, then someone else can eat your meat, therefore nothing prevents cannibalism. If you accept the point of view of a meat-eater, then you should not be indignant that someone ate your child.

Hilarious. Cannibalism is quite the tradition here, I don't think anyone considered it unethical even though it might have made them indignant.

 

[rupol2000]

Jesus.

This is the case. If crossing a person and a frog will produce fertile offspring, then this is one biological species by definition. If a cross between a Rh negative and a Rh positive person cannot naturally (that is, without therapy) give offspring, then this is an interspecific crossing. This was not invented by me, these are the dogmas of official biology. You can check.

 

[cnm]

It's a bullshit. Any external influence is a "stimul"

Use a dictionary before bloviating.

stimulus noun (stimuli) 1 something that acts as an incentive, inspiration, provocation, etc. 2 something, such as a drug, an electrical impulse, heat, light, etc, that causes a specific response in a cell, tissue, organ, etc.​

I don't think I can be bothered continuing a text based discussion with someone who doesn't know the meaning of words but instead insists on his own meanings..

 

[rupol2000]

Use a dictionary before bloviating.

stimulus noun (stimuli) 1 something that acts as an incentive, inspiration, provocation, etc. 2 something, such as a drug, an electrical impulse, heat, light, etc, that causes a specific response in a cell, tissue, organ, etc.

And in your opinion the TV does not react specifically to the signal from the remote control or the connector of the button?

 

[cnm]

Nor can I be bothered with someone who confuses a tv with a cell, tissue or organ.

 

[Blues Man]

Man is neither a carnivore (which eats meat only) nor a vegetarian (which eats plants only). Man is an omnivore meaning he eats both naturally. Living things typically must kill (either plants or animals: both are living things) to survive. Just reality. Deal with it.

Humans do not need to eat meat regardless of evolution

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Humans do not need to eat meat regardless of evolution

Actually we do.

 

[Blues Man]

Actually we do.

No we don't. You're probably going to use the old B 12 argument right?

The fact is that supplemental B 12 is absorbed more readily than B 12 produced my ruminants and humans need very little, only about 2.5 micrograms a day

 

[rupol2000]

Nor can I be bothered with someone who confuses a tv with a cell, tissue or organ.

That is, you have given up, you have nothing to support your ridiculous assertion that reaction is life. Good.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No we don't. You're probably going to use the old B 12 argument right?

The fact is that supplemental B 12 is absorbed more readily than B 12 produced my ruminants and humans need very little, only about 2.5 micrograms a day

Meat is essential to good health not pills.

 

[rupol2000]

No we don't. You're probably going to use the old B 12 argument right?

The fact is that supplemental B 12 is absorbed more readily than B 12 produced my ruminants and humans need very little, only about 2.5 micrograms a day

in addition, it accumulates in huge quantities and is found not only in meat.

The opposite is most likely true. There are some substances that predators lack, wolves purposefully eat the shit of herbivores, this is one of the explanations.