Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 20:26:03
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 16:35:35
> Meat eating is not associated with obesity, per se.
Indeed. And vegetarianism / veganism is not associated with looking like a skeleton, per se - either ;-)
(That was my point there - that both assumptions are false and are as bad as each other).> > All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
> I feel even more unwell on a vegetarian diet.Did you keep up your suppliments ;-)
> Some individuals are thriftier, or more efficient, or less genetically unstable, and get by on a lesser quality of food.Right. So not all people would require suppliments then?
> And it does not falsify the conclusion that some may do best with meat.How much better? There is a lot of variation available within a vegetarian / vegan diet. There are lots of suppliments available. There is a difference between consuming meat every night and once per week. All I am saying is that we should take a sentient animal into account the same way that we take retarded children into account. I would say that we should be extremely reluctant to eat both...
> The British measure is called the Reference Nutrient Intake, but it is defined indentically to the US RDA (which is being superceded by the DRI, or Daily Reference Intake). I haven't seen the underlying assumptions which inform the British values.
Hmm. But they tell us different things. Who to believe...
> The "colouring" of which you speak is the flavinoid B-vitamin known as riboflavin. For it to enter one's urine, it must first have entered the bloodstream, and gotten past the liver. At that point in time, it is available to all bodily tissues and organs. The kidneys are too unselective to retain most nutrients in the blood, allowing them to spill into the urine. The yellow stain is proof of uptake.I defer to your expertise there...
So we absorb the riboflavin okay then???
We don't seem to need as much of it as they put in if it is coming out in access ;-)
> I have no interest in suffering. I kill mice which invade my pantry. I shan't have little beasties pooping in my food. My cat kills mice for its own reasons, and I do not judge it. Not all behaviours lend themselves to being weighed on the ethical balance.No. We don't condemn animals hunting. Animals aren't moral agents. Would you think it is okay to squash a retarded human being for pooping in your food?
If not - why not?
What is the difference?
> Sorry. I wished only to ensure consistency of argument with empirical evidence.Thats ok.
It can be hard to figure just how much the empirical evidence affects the argument, though.
My main argument was Singers - that we should consider comperable suffering comperably. That animals have comperable sentience to a human infant, therefore to take greater account of human infants than animals is morally unjustifyable.
If you take greater account of human infants than animals then that is morally unjustifyable.
That was my main point.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466210.html