If we accept evolution theory-Meat-eaters are cannibals

[Col]

The third image in the original post for me "can't be unseen" (warning) and has haunted me
but I think the wording is brilliantly put,
after thinking about it I agree that evolution itself does indeed point to the immorality of eating animals related to humans in history.
Some may say "What about plants then, being living forms as well?"
It is harder to imagine being a plant than being one of these animals separated by the evolution of a few million years,
that is where I am drawing my line.

 

[VeganRachel]

Ha! The reason we don't eat other people is that they aren't nutritious enough.

Truthfully, I blieve the main reason we don't like to eat other humans is because they are the SAME SPECIES as we are. Did someone take human flesh to a lab to compare so they could decide which to eat? I doubt it. I believe the "nutrition"
to eating farm animals would be very similar if there was a comparison. To cannibals, human flesh is adequately "nutritious"., and they have stated many times that humans taste like pigs, or young calves. And lets understand that 97% of all farm animals, as well as farmed fishes, are fed supplements in their feed/body including B12. So, the omnivores who sneer at vegans for "needing to take supplements", are eating animals that ate supplements.

New Study Fleshes Out the Nutritional Value of Human Meat

The caloric value of the human body is surprisingly low compared to other prehistoric food options

www.smithsonianmag.com

Human flesh isn't very nutritious

Humans aren't the most nutritious species, suggesting that early hominids turned to cannibalism for other reasons. Read on.

www.popsci.com

For cannibals, here’s the caloric content of humans—it’s just meh (with chart)

 

[kelmoy1976]

I don't think it's helpful to call people names ("cannibal"). This isn't an effective way to attract people to veganism.

Maybe it is time for a new approach. Since meat eaters have a major disconnect and empathy for the suffering of animals and the nightmare conditions of people working in slaughterhouses. I wrote a list of animals seeing that the list of animals that are considered food around the world, including insects exceeds the animals not eaten around the world. And my psychological reaction to reading just the words of plants. To include humans on the list was appropriate.

 

[Freesia]

I understand that the whole thing is about our own species. But that is precisely it, when I lived on a farm (WWOOFING) (more than a decade ago) I spent a lot of time around the animals there and the more I knew of them, the more they resembled humans... I started to question the differences... I just dont think there is much of a difference between animals and us, and I think most people have pretty huge cognitive dissonance about this. I guess that is the difference between us and omnivores, the fact that we have considered this enough.

 

[g0rph]

"If we accept evolution theory?"​

Everyone with any common sense accepts it. It is the theory that explains the facts. It's a fact that evolution of species happen. We can see it on a small scale with fruit flies and bacteria.
We can see it in the fossil record and we can prove it 100% through genetics.
The theory of evolution (by natural selection) is unchallenged in 150 years or so. It simply is.

And a cannibal, by definition is a species that eats it's own species. i.e. The whole premise of the discussion is flawed.

Other points.
Without eating other species, humans would have died out. It was 100% necessary if we go back long enough.
The reason why I and millions of others don't is because we don't have to. So doing something we don't have to that causes pain and suffering seems to be a pretty simple morally bad thing to do.

 

[Brian W]

"If we accept evolution theory?"​

Everyone with any common sense accepts it. It is the theory that explains the facts. It's a fact that evolution of species happen. We can see it on a small scale with fruit flies and bacteria.
We can see it in the fossil record and we can prove it 100% through genetics.
The theory of evolution (by natural selection) is unchallenged in 150 years or so. It simply is.

It has been challenged many many times, one of the latest challenges concerning the Cambrian explosion that shows new creatures appearing suddenly rather than gradually evolving.

 

[g0rph]

It has been challenged many many times, one of the latest challenges concerning the Cambrian explosion that shows new creatures appearing suddenly rather than gradually evolving.

No. I mean challenged by a reputable, scientific source. Not some ID lunatics. If that's your "challenge" then. Goodbye. You are blocked for now.
But if you do read this, then please, read a very easy to understand book on the subject, by an actual evolutionary biologist.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" - Richard Dawkins.

 

[Lou]

No. I mean challenged by a reputable, scientific source. Not some ID lunatics. If that's your "challenge" then. Goodbye. You are blocked for now.
But if you do read this, then please, read a very easy to understand book on the subject, by an actual evolutionary biologist.
"The Greatest Show on Earth" - Richard Dawkins.

I'm pretty sure Dawkns explained the two speeds of evolution in the Blind Watchmaker

 

[I Love Animals]

Wow, I have never gotten called a cannibal before

 

[g0rph]

I'm pretty sure Dawkns explained the two speeds of evolution in the Blind Watchmaker

Anyone who uses Intelligent Design based "evidence" is at best, ignorant, or at worst, an idiot. ID was a reformulation of the Creation hypothesis in order to try and force religion into science classes. It's a disgusting sham and not worth any more discussion than flat-earthism.

 

[Lou]

Anyone who uses Intelligent Design based "evidence" is at best, ignorant, or at worst, an idiot.

Not that I disagree with you, but I believe that one should be respectful of others beliefs.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Not that I disagree with you, but I believe that one should be respectful of others beliefs.

I think, @Lou, that one should be respectful of others full stop. However, there is nothing disrespectful about highlighting demonstrable holes in someone's logic. Any belief based on something that cannot be or at least has not so far been proven is faith. What we accept as fact - or at least firm scientific theory - is based on evidence-based research. Fact and faith can co-exist perfectly comfortably as long as faith doesn't try to contradict the evidence, but intelligent design is an example of faith doing just that. That's a pity because religious faith and scientific knowledge have rather fewer disagreements than one might think so picking fights is not a sensible idea.

Just as importantly, anyone who holds beliefs that are demonstrably and proveably wrong is still entitled to those beliefs but only in the sense that they are entitled to the freedom to choose to be wrong. If they hold those beliefs through lack of familiarity of the salient contradicting evidence, that is by definition ignorance. If they hold those beliefs even after having been apprised of the salient contradicting evidence that's wilfully illogical behaviour and I think many people would have a hard time arguing that calling it idiocy is disrespectful so much as rather brutally straight-talking. It might show scant regard to the believer's sensitivities but a lack of respect?

What does show a lack of respect, however, is dismissing someone's faith (something I hasten to add I've never seen @Lou do - just to be clear since it's @Lou's post I'm replying to). Not having proven something exists is not the same as having proven it doesn't, so if scientific understanding doesn't provide an answer to the existence of a deity or deities, someone's faith should only be challenged if it shows inconsistency. If it doesn't, dismissing that faith as nonsense is absolutely showing a lack of respect.

 

[Lou]

I think, @Lou, that one should be respectful of others full stop. However, there is nothing disrespectful about highlighting demonstrable holes in someone's logic.

till you call them an idiot.

 

[majorbloodnok]

till you call them an idiot.

Actually, @Lou, I'm going to do something of an about-face. Re-reading @gorph's post, I notice the term "idiot" was indeed applied to the person whereas I was arguing the act of believing in something demonstrably wrong could legitimately be called idiocy. I still stand by criticising the act, but not comfortable with labelling the person.

 

[g0rph]

Not that I disagree with you, but I believe that one should be respectful of others beliefs.

Absolutely.
But in the case of ID, it is a sneaky way to get creationism to sound scientific.

As for the idiot word. I am not calling anyone in particular an idiot. I said "at worst, an idiot". I imagine most adherents of ID are indeed simply ignorant (not in the pejorative sense).
But thinking again, the worst would be charlatans that know full well that what they are preaching is nonsense, but do it for the power...which in the end was the main reason Christianity etc got to where they are today.
Christianity as a way to live (ignoring the old Testament) seems to be a noble thing. Respect, love, kindness, forgiveness etc. But it seems to me that the most vocal Christians are just playing the system for what it can get them and using their religion to discriminate against minority groups.
About the only religions I have any time for (or in fact any respect for) are Buddhism and Jainism. Peaceful by their writing, mostly at least vegetarian and they don't seem to persecute others particularly often (Burma notwithstanding).

 

[Lou]

Absolutely.
But in the case of ID, it is a sneaky way to get creationism to sound scientific.

As for the idiot word. I am not calling anyone in particular an idiot. I said "at worst, an idiot". I imagine most adherents of ID are indeed simply ignorant (not in the pejorative sense).

Agan, I agree with Everything you said.

But to play around with words, saying, "Anyone who uses Intelligent Design based "evidence" is at best, ignorant, or at worst, an idiot." Is not that different from saying "you are an idiot"

Oh sure, you can maybe get out of a slander accusation with a good lawyer and a professor of semantics as your first witness, but c'mon we all know what you mean.

I think you can make your point without disparaging people. You can make your point, and even attack someone's opinions and ideas, without name calling.

I'll even go one step further. We are all vegans here. We are all on the same side. If you are vegan because god told you so, that we are god's beautiful creature, that is fine with me.

Also if you alienate a vegan because you can't tolerate their beliefs..... well... how is that a good thing?

There is a quote from a novel that I have sort of adopted. It is something like, Never miss a chance to befriend or educate.

 

[g0rph]

Agan, I agree with Everything you said.

But to play around with words, saying, "Anyone who uses Intelligent Design based "evidence" is at best, ignorant, or at worst, an idiot." Is not that different from saying "you are an idiot"

Oh sure, you can maybe get out of a slander accusation with a good lawyer and a professor of semantics as your first witness, but c'mon we all know what you mean.

I think you can make your point without disparaging people. You can make your point, and even attack someone's opinions and ideas, without name calling.

I'll even go one step further. We are all vegans here. We are all on the same side. If you are vegan because god told you so, that we are god's beautiful creature, that is fine with me.

Also if you alienate a vegan because you can't tolerate their beliefs..... well... how is that a good thing?

There is a quote from a novel that I have sort of adopted. It is something like, Never miss a chance to befriend or educate.

Fair enough Lou. I respect that, and you.
And apologies if anyone thought it was aimed at them.

As I have mentioned before, organised religion, in my eyes is at least as bad as, and to be honest, I think worse than...animal agriculture.
It's the single most evil thing that humans have devised, and occasionally I do let it show...

 

[Lou]

In principle I agree with you about religions.

However 3 of the nicest people I know are a Catholic, a Mormon, and a Baptist.

 

[g0rph]

In principle I agree with you about religions.

However 3 of the nicest people I know are a Catholic, a Mormon, and a Baptist.

Indeed. I almost added that I know lots of lovely people who are religious. My last job in the UK was a mix of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and plain old Christians of various flavours.

I respect and like many adherents. It's the organised religions themselves and the actions of the vocal minorities in some of them I do not like or respect.

"

a Catholic, a Mormon, and a Baptist.

...walk into a bar

 

[g0rph]

Actually, @Lou, I'm going to do something of an about-face. Re-reading @gorph's post, I notice the term "idiot" was indeed applied to the person whereas I was arguing the act of believing in something demonstrably wrong could legitimately be called idiocy. I still stand by criticising the act, but not comfortable with labelling the person.

As I said, I wasn't aiming the word at anyone in particular. Maybe I failed to convey that well enough.
But there are certain people where the word is very apt...Westboro Baptist church folk or rabid, frothing at the mouth MAGAs, or if we take a UK perspective, people who graffiti NF /Swastikas or football hooligans...

Idiots the lot of them...at best.