c4countdown

I have some. Does anyone else?

They're awesome.

Certainly do... I also have a sundew, which looks really good in bright sunlight and is great for catching smaller critters!

I've been feeding wasps to mine with chopsticks. Beautiful.

Is it okay for vegetarians to eat venus fly traps?

Have we got any vegetarians on the board? We should have a thread on that. Idiots.

Jon Corby wrote:Have we got any vegetarians on the board? We should have a thread on that. Idiots.

You are so b& from CO:LON.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Have we got any vegetarians on the board? We should have a thread on that. Idiots.

You are so b& from CO:LON.

Good, didn't want to come anyway, I'd rather stay at home and feed wasps to plants.

Jon Corby wrote:Have we got any vegetarians on the board? We should have a thread on that. Idiots.

Vegetarianism, purely as a dietary paradigm, is fine by me but don't get me started on militant vegetarians/vegans who claim that 'meat is murder'.

Incidentally, I did have a Venus Flytrap as a kid, they're awesome.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein

"Meat is murder." Jesus

You can't call Morrissey a cunt Chris. Look at his silly quiff thing.

Heather Badcock wrote:"Meat is murder." Jesus

Geronimo 7 vs 22

Chris Davies wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Have we got any vegetarians on the board? We should have a thread on that. Idiots.

Vegetarianism, purely as a dietary paradigm, is fine by me but don't get me started on militant vegetarians/vegans who claim that 'meat is murder'.

Moral theorists advance a strong argument for the case that eating meat is immoral. For instance, we routinely ascribe rights to the mentally deficient or infants so the issue is not can they think but can they suffer? For Kant, since it is inhuman to inflict suffering then it must be inhuman to subject a non-human animal to suffering [of course suffering means more than the method used to kill the animal]. For a modern thinker, like Tom Regan, the animal is a "subject of a life" and has rights as such which goes further than Kant: it does not root it in humanism.

I have made this argument many times before but, epistemologically speaking, the argument that the non-human animal does not suffer etc is weak. We can never truly know how the non-human animal experiences its existence. There can be no litigation where the non-human animal testifies to its wrongs. Instead we have a debate where the discussion is carried out in the idiom of the defendant, the judge is the defendant, the jury is the defendant and the plaintiff is represented by the defendant.

Now, I eat meat but I do not baulk when someone tells me "meat is murder". I agree, but I tell them meat tastes good and while it is not illegal to slaughter animals for food I am happy to be immoral.

Yeah, nothing wrong with moral vegetarianism if you ask me.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Chris Davies wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Have we got any vegetarians on the board? We should have a thread on that. Idiots.

Vegetarianism, purely as a dietary paradigm, is fine by me but don't get me started on militant vegetarians/vegans who claim that 'meat is murder'.

Moral theorists advance a strong argument for the case that eating meat is immoral. For instance, we routinely ascribe rights to the mentally deficient or infants so the issue is not can they think but can they suffer? For Kant, since it is inhuman to inflict suffering then it must be inhuman to subject a non-human animal to suffering [of course suffering means more than the method used to kill the animal]. For a modern thinker, like Tom Regan, the animal is a "subject of a life" and has rights as such which goes further than Kant: it does not root it in humanism.

I have made this argument many times before but, epistemologically speaking, the argument that the non-human animal does not suffer etc is weak. We can never truly know how the non-human animal experiences its existence. There can be no litigation where the non-human animal testifies to its wrongs. Instead we have a debate where the discussion is carried out in the idiom of the defendant, the judge is the defendant, the jury is the defendant and the plaintiff is represented by the defendant.

Now, I eat meat but I do not baulk when someone tells me "meat is murder". I agree, but I tell them meat tastes good and while it is not illegal to slaughter animals for food I am happy to be immoral.

Does this come under "talk shit that nobody understands about philosophy reply"?

I like bacon

Ryan Taylor wrote: Does this come under "talk shit that nobody understands about philosophy reply"?

I tried to keep it simple too but I guess I over-estimate my audience.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote: Does this come under "talk shit that nobody understands about philosophy reply"?

I tried to keep it simple too but I guess I over-estimate my audience.

I understood, FWIW. I'd pretty much stopped eating meat (although I don't call myself a vegetarian because then people expect you to eat vegetables and I mostly eat Oreos). But over here it's completely impossible, unless you want to eat cheese-on-cheese-with-cheese-topping for every meal. I still try to minimise my meat consumption but after a few weeks of avoiding it altogether it just became too depressing.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:

Ryan Taylor wrote: Does this come under "talk shit that nobody understands about philosophy reply"?

I tried to keep it simple too but I guess I over-estimate my audience.

I understood, FWIW. I'd pretty much stopped eating meat (although I don't call myself a vegetarian because then people expect you to eat vegetables and I mostly eat Oreos). But over here it's completely impossible, unless you want to eat cheese-on-cheese-with-cheese-topping for every meal. I still try to minimise my meat consumption but after a few weeks of avoiding it altogether it just became too depressing.

I did it for two years and didn't manage the diet properly at all. With the result that I did experience mood swings and the like. Of course, it is doable (and many people are doing it), but I think it takes a little bit of thought regarding your diet options. The first time I had a rare fillet steak, after two years without any meat, was fairly orgasmic.

Some animals eat other animals. Deal with it.

Jon Corby wrote:Some animals eat other animals. Deal with it.

Some animals act immorally, humans especially.

It does nothing to challenge the argument, if anything it augments it.

David O'Donnell wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Some animals eat other animals. Deal with it.

Some animals act immorally, humans especially.

It does nothing to challenge the argument, if anything it augments it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/200 ... n.research

David O'Donnell wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:Some animals eat other animals. Deal with it.

Some animals act immorally, humans especially.

It does nothing to challenge the argument, if anything it augments it.

Poor, I logged on for 2 minutes yesterday and posted that, I expected this to at least be on a second page by now. Disappointing response.

There is kind of a point though, would it be "acceptable" if we chased the animals in the wild and sunk our teeth straight into them? Would it be acceptable to GM an almost "plant-like" meat source?

David O'Donnell wrote:The first time I had a rare fillet steak, after two years without any meat

That is indeed a rare fillet steak.

BTW, anyone going down the "we can't exploit animals for our own gain" route better also be prepared to say "I've never used any conventional medicine and would refuse to be treated in a hospital." Otherwise you can shut your face.

Jon Corby wrote:BTW, anyone going down the "we can't exploit animals for our own gain" route better also be prepared to say "I've never used any conventional medicine and would refuse to be treated in a hospital." Otherwise you can shut your face.

I think you are talking about ethics rather than morality. Ethics tend to revolve around the particular and what is the right thing to do; morality is universal and concerns what is the good thing to do. While we may think in universals we live in details and very often there will be ethical questions that seem to challenge the legitimacy of the moral theory.

Suppose we have a moral vegetarian whose child needs a replacement valve from a pig for a heart operation, are they being immoral by accepting the valve (we'll ignore the possibility that the pig had a donor card)? In Kantian terms the answer is clearly no since although it is inhuman to inflict suffering on animals surely it would be more inhuman to let your child die. Even for Regan whose argument, not grounded in humanism, accords animals the status of subject-of-a-life would be hard pressed to view the parent as hypocritical or immoral. What you have is the right of one subject-of-a-life competing with the right of another. Once it becomes ethical the particular takes on a greater meaning and in this case one can argue that as a parent we'll choose our child and as humans we'll advance the claim of our species.

If you take cosmetic surgery then we do not have this conflict between one subject-of-a-life and another. So, the moral vegetarian could tell his wife that she is not having that breast surgery regardless of how it may appeal to him on an immoral level. I guess it gets complicated when you start discussing retinal transplants and the like. I do not think Kant would have a problem but Regan may argue that it is not a case of conflict between two subjects-of-a-life.

I know this does not really answer the ethical challenges you raised, Jon, I am just trying to suggest moral vegetarianism does not commit a person to not subjecting an animal to suffering in all circumstances. Where there are competing rights ethical decisions have to be made.

Jon Corby wrote:BTW, anyone going down the "we can't exploit animals for our own gain" route better also be prepared to say "I've never used any conventional medicine and would refuse to be treated in a hospital." Otherwise you can shut your face.

This may cover some of the same ground as David, but it's not necessarily an all or nothing thing. Someone may care about animals and decide that it's unnecessary to eat them so refrains from doing so. But then if it comes to a life or death situation (or even one not as extreme as that) then you have to weigh things up against each other.

Also, when it comes to knowledge gained through exploiting animals, knowledge learnt can't be unlearnt and you could argue that it would be even more of a waste if the knowledge was never used. Obviously you may want to then weight that up against encouraging people to exploit animals in the future, but if it turned out that the wheel was invented through the exploitation of animals, I don't think one would expect vegeterians not to use wheels.

That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

Jon Corby wrote:That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

I believe that Jehovah witnesses can refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children, unless a court of law orders it. If I locked my children in a room and starved them to death I would be charged murder. What's the difference?.

George F. Jenkins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

I believe that Jehovah witnesses can refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children, unless a court of law orders it. If I locked my children in a room and starved them to death I would be charged murder. What's the difference?.

Urm, no difference. As you said yourself, a court won't let you starve your child to death or deprive them of a transfusion that would save their life.

George F. Jenkins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

I believe that Jehovah witnesses can refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children, unless a court of law orders it. If I locked my children in a room and starved them to death I would be charged murder. What's the difference?.

They can try

George F. Jenkins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

I believe that Jehovah witnesses can refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children, unless a court of law orders it. If I locked my children in a room and starved them to death I would be charged murder. What's the difference?.

George F? Jenkins.

It doesn't stand for Fritzl by any chance?

James Doohan wrote:

George F. Jenkins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

I believe that Jehovah witnesses can refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children, unless a court of law orders it. If I locked my children in a room and starved them to death I would be charged murder. What's the difference?.

They can try

You can also try to starve your kids to death. That doesn't mean a court would let you do it.

Hannah Jones aged 12 chose to refuse a heart transplant, and won a legal battle to support that. Child services had threatened to remove her from her parents to force the operation to go ahead. (She has since changed her mind, received her new heart, and I wish her well in her recovery.) I appreciate that in this case this child in question was an intelligent person who had already suffered a great deal with her medical history and had had enough. A court will only rule, though, the best interests of the patient involved.

Vegetarianism and medicine aren't and shouldn't be mutually exclusive. I eat meat but prefer to eat organic and free-range meat where the animal has had a quality of life and a death with suffering minimised to every extent. My human dietary requirements (iron, calcium, vitamins A, D, E, K, B12) proscribe animal products should form part of my diet. Evolutionarily my dentition demonstrates I ought to eat meat, but that meat should also form a minor part of my diet. This is transcribed on a wider scale with rates of diseases influenced by high animal fat / protein being prevalent in modern societies: we eat far more meat than we need to.

As a patient I also recognise that my treatments would not have been possible without much animal experimentation, and know my drugs and surgical procedures were tested on animals before they made it to me. Once I would have been horrified at the idea of xenotransplantation. I guarantee that if you've got <48 hours to live you'll consider it more seriously. (I was pretty gutted at the thought of a cadaveric human transplant, I can tell you.)

Summary? I'm "top of the food chain". Sorry. I would never wish suffering of any kind on any being, human or otherwise, but if it allows me to be alive and love my son (who wouldn't otherwise be here), husband, friends and family, I can justify that to myself.

Lesley Hines wrote:I would never wish suffering of any kind on any being, human or otherwise, but if it allows me to be alive

Maybe I'm missing your point, but you don't have to eat meat to be alive* (and since someone's brought it up - I've never understood the whole "look at our teeth we've evolved to eat meat" thing - there's plenty of stuff we have/haven't evolved to do/not do - it's hardly a justification of anything).

*Edit: and having re-read your post that statement seems to follow on more directly from the medicine thing than the diet thing. But you still seem to be implying that needing a certain set of vitamins is a justification for this suffering you would never wish on any kind of being.

Fish is the only meat I eat. I gave up other meat years ago at a time when I really enjoyed it and memory of fillet steak makes my mouth water almost as much as the thought and smell of bacon.
It would take too long to explain it, but basically it is to do not with how the meat industry kills (or the fact that it does) but how it organises the animals' lives.
Not only do so many animals (chickens and pigs especially) live in disgusting conditions but the product is often not safe to eat. I do not know how people can eat chicken without being shit scared.

I think its time for my profound view on the vegetarianism debate.
If the whole world stopped eating meat from now on we would probably solve global warming in 2 years.

John Bosley wrote:I do not know how people can eat chicken without being shit scared.

We're big brave people, while vegetarians are pasty, anaemic-looking weeds

John Bosley wrote:I do not know how people can eat chicken without being shit scared.

I eat SO much chicken, it's not even funny. Like 3 or 4 times a week. And I can't remember ever being ill from eating chicken. I got food-poisoning after eating fish and chips once though.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Lesley Hines wrote:I would never wish suffering of any kind on any being, human or otherwise, but if it allows me to be alive

Maybe I'm missing your point, but you don't have to eat meat to be alive* (and since someone's brought it up - I've never understood the whole "look at our teeth we've evolved to eat meat" thing - there's plenty of stuff we have/haven't evolved to do/not do - it's hardly a justification of anything).

*Edit: and having re-read your post that statement seems to follow on more directly from the medicine thing than the diet thing. But you still seem to be implying that needing a certain set of vitamins is a justification for this suffering you would never wish on any kind of being.

Yeah I did mean that for the medical bit
It's absolutely true that meat isn't an essential part of the diet in this country, although animal products are. I do believe, though, we've got a luxury of choice from our farming and importing that's not available to other societies without such benefits. We eat far too much meat (I cannot stress that enough, and include myself in that) but we can replace that in this country with protein complementation, artificially produced supplements (i.e. B12), creation of HBV protein using TVP, etc. Meat provides a usefully concentrated source of these things in societies where they don't have these luxuries.

Will all the militant vegetarians please stop hijacking the thread. I seriously need to talk to Corby about the best way of feeding George's organically farmed dungeon children to my venus fly trap.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

John Bosley wrote:I do not know how people can eat chicken without being shit scared.

I eat SO much chicken, it's not even funny. Like 3 or 4 times a week. And I can't remember ever being ill from eating chicken. I got food-poisoning after eating fish and chips once though.

Only time I've ever had food poisoning was from a vegetarian quesadilla. SO RIDDLE ME THAT, LINDA MCCARTNEY!

OK its off topic so I will stop now - after this:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Factory-farming ... ssary-evil

• 90% of British chickens have an area the size of an A4 piece of paper, so they cannot turn round properly.
Meat chickens -
An entire batch is raised at once, usually in a shed together. The floors are not cleaned except between batches.
• Up to 80% of chickens suffer from either rickety legs or heart-failure;
• Because of the lack of cleaning, about half develop sores from urine and fecal contamination;
• Approx. 6% die before slaughter, from respiratory disease, fatty liver, and heart failure;
• The de-beaking is painful;


"ENJOY !"

John Bosley wrote:• Approx. 6% die before slaughter, from respiratory disease, fatty liver, and heart failure;

How old are they when they go to slaughter? Cos that doesn't sound too bad, considering you're trying to paint their conditions as horrific. There must be many areas where human mortality rate is worse than that. Sheffield, for example.

John Bosley wrote:I do not know how people can eat chicken without being shit scared.

They'd be cannibals.

David O'Donnell wrote:

George F. Jenkins wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:That's all fair enough, but I just want these hippies to refuse treatment.

I believe that Jehovah witnesses can refuse life saving blood transfusions for their children, unless a court of law orders it. If I locked my children in a room and starved them to death I would be charged murder. What's the difference?.

George F? Jenkins.

It doesn't stand for Fritzl by any chance?

He! He! please stop it, now I won't be able to sleep, giggling all night.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Is is urban myth or did Kentucky Fried Chicken really have to change its name under the Trade Description Act because it isn't from Kentucky, it isn't fried and it sure as fuck isn't chicken?

David O'Donnell wrote:

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Is is urban myth or did Kentucky Fried Chicken really have to change its name under the Trade Description Act because it isn't from Kentucky, it isn't fried and it sure as fuck isn't chicken?

Not the Trade Description Act, but http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp.

Jon Corby wrote:There must be many areas where human mortality rate is worse than that. Sheffield, for example.

Oy

Actually fair point there was a drive-by shooting the week me and Emma moved into our digs, but as long as you're not in a gang or Somalian they leave you alone