carnivore hobbits

[RoseMorninStar]

it is not "wrong".

it is wrong because you can choose not to inflict death and pain but you do not make that choice. you prefer death and pain. you are not a dog.

Again with the presumptions and personal accusations. YOU don't know what I choose to eat, however, kindness does not seem to be a particular concern. You've stated you have objections to Tolkiens forms of rule in a fictional world, totalitarianism for the choices others make doesn't seem to follow suit.

It is very fortunate that we all have choices in life.. in many areas of our lives.

[redrobot]

let's put it this way ... it is wrong to eat meat because people can choose not to inflict death and pain on animals but do not make that choice. instead they prefer death and pain to support their unnecessary eating of meat. it is a pleasure thing. they like it but dont need it. so their need for pleasure demands suffering. that's sadism. as end users in the process of livestock farming and butchery, these same people have part responsibility for killing these animals. they are the demand. they demand that the animals die. in sharing that responsibility, they are killers.

now you and aravar are either part of this group or not. i dont know and wont presume ttho your arguments lead a reasonable person to infer that you are. i will not infer however and will instead keep an open mind as you ask as you may afterall just be playing devil's advocate.

[Aravar]

You appear to say that dogs are not responsible because they have no choice. Again that assertion is unevidenced and does not explain the fact that dogs are capable of being trained to do things.

This assertion supports the idea that non-human animals are a different category of "beings" than humans (if they are beings at all).

If they are not to be accorded the responsibilites and duties of humans. Why should they be accorded rights?

Why, also is it always wrong to inflict suffering? Are, for example, prison sentences wrong?

[redrobot]

tell me why it is right to inflict pain and death on animals when people dont need to do that

[Aravar]

No.

Most people are meat eaters and it accords with our history as omnivorous apes that evolved in East Africa. Meat contains essential nutrients which are difficult to obtain elsewhere.

You tell me why that default position of humanity is wrong.

In particular you have to explain why inflicting pain or death is axiomatically wrong.

You seem to appeal to some supposed universal moral principle to which I am supposed to agree and therefore concede your argument.

What is that principle?

What is its source?

Why is anyone bound to assent to it?

Think about these questions.

[redrobot]

Most people are meat eaters and it accords with our history as omnivorous apes that evolved in East Africa. Meat contains essential nutrients which are difficult to obtain elsewhere.

yes. that was true. it isnt any more. tofu 36g/100g protein, beef 36g/100g protein

You tell me why that default position of humanity is wrong.

it's wrong. we have evolved to the point where we can survive without meat and where our sensibilities are more interested in animal welfare

In particular you have to explain why inflicting pain or death is axiomatically wrong.

because the suffering and killing of other animals causes me suffering

You seem to appeal to some supposed universal moral principle to which I am supposed to agree and therefore concede your argument.

until now i was talking to you as a person who wd usually agree that animal suffering is wrong. not a philosophy undergraduate who asks for axioms. the axiom
wd be this - because the suffering and killing of other animals causes me suffering

Why is anyone bound to assent to it?

they will only assent to it if they become aware of animal suffereing and suffer themselves by being exposed to it and become aware of the unnecessary nature of animal slaughter. they need to be educated and then act on that education.. some cd be eductaed and be indifferent to animal slaughter. becasue meat consumption is unnecessary and predicated on pleasure, these people are then identified as sadists, demmanding the pain of other beings for their pleasure.

go walk into the nearest RSPCA centre and ask them about the axiomatic requirements of animal suffering.

[redrobot]

a couple of other animal products that are eaten or suggested as meals are deer meat (killed by aragorn) and eggs (offered by bilbo to gandalf)

[redrobot]

you have to explain why inflicting pain or death is axiomatically wrong.

this request is akin to a psychopathic symptom

The PCL describes psychopaths as being callous and showing a lack of empathy, traits which the PPI describes as “coldheartedness.” The criteria for dissocial personality disorder include a “callous unconcern for the feelings of others.” There are now several lines of evidence that point to the biological grounding for the uncaring nature of the psychopath.

[heliona]

I believe in this case it is just playing devil's advocate and trying to get to the bottom of the ideas. Not actually a "callous unconcern for the feelings of others".

For instance, there might be some people who would suggest that the world is a better place because a serial killer is dead, killed before their time, before they could kill more people.

[RoseMorninStar]

Soy is phytoestrogenic which causes problems for some people (tumors/cancers), especially for menopausal women or people with thyroid issues. The estrogenic effect can cause problems for men as well; gynecomastia (enlarged breasts), tumors, and erectile problems. Soy is heavily bombarded with petrochemicals. It's even sprayed with pesticides and chemicals after it's harvested to prevent sprouting in storage. It's difficult to find organic soy products, and, as stated above, some need to avoid it altogether.

Soy also contains phytic acid. Phytic acid binds to minerals (copper, calcium, zinc and magnesium, etc.) blocking absorption of these nutrients. Phytic acid can be removed from soy by long and slow cooking in high heat, a process that is not employed in the making of tofu. The main ingredient in soy milk is heated during the process of curdling but the length of cooking is too short thus fails to deactivate the phytic acid.

While soy can be part of a healthy diet, it's not a wonder food it shouldn't be relied upon too heavily.

now you and aravar are either part of this group or not. i dont know and wont presume ttho your arguments lead a reasonable person to infer that you are.

That might be the thought process of some, but that's not the way I choose to think/believe.

I have neighbors who are extreme, radical, fundamentalist, young-earth creationist 'christians'. They believe the earth is (I've lost track of the exact age they believe the earth to be but..) something in the 5-6,000 years range-they have an exact date, which they believe is of the utmost importance. They believe humans & dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time. They travel around to fairs and markets and anyone who will have them giving their version of 'history'. If that is what they choose to believe, that is their right. Whatever.

HOWEVER, my problem comes from them forcing their beliefs onto others. They are quite righteous and smug in their beliefs. The more radical their behavior & beliefs, the 'holier' they perceive themselves to be. They got involved in local politics, onto school boards, library boards, etc.. and tried to have public funds funneled into their church, and to promote their marginal ideas in the public schools, etc... They succeeded in some areas because many of the organizations couldn't afford to fight them legally when presented with their lawsuits.

What I find interesting about these 'christian' neighbors is that the 'holier' they believe themselves to be, the less 'Christ-like' I found their behavior. They are awful neighbors, they don't get along with anyone in the neighborhood, it's not just me. In part due to their behavior, I stopped being a christian years ago. Their 'holiness' opened my eyes in a way I am sure they did not intend. Even if one agrees with them on an issue, it would never good enough.. they just ramp up the crazy--because they are superior to every one else.

Because of situations like this, and because I tend to prefer moderation to extremism, I do not like to force my beliefs on others. I might discuss my thoughts, present facts, or discuss how I came to believe that way, or share how I live, but I prefer not to use intimidation or attacks, etc... It generally backfires and doesn't improve results or communication or do a particularly good job of convincing people of anything. I greatly value individual freedom of choice.

It's said one can catch more flies with honey (or agave nectar--which by the way, is not a good/healthy food to eat).

I am afraid I have veered off topic.. Whether I agree with Tolkien and the Hobbit diet is not an issue for me. I can choose to live/eat as I please (thankfully). Tolkien wrote the story keeping in mind what HE (and many) thought was an idyllic lifestyle of plenty as is his privilege as the author. If someone chooses not to find that idyllic, that is their prerogative as well.

[Aravar]

Most people are meat eaters and it accords with our history as omnivorous apes that evolved in East Africa. Meat contains essential nutrients which are difficult to obtain elsewhere.

yes. that was true. it isnt any more. tofu 36g/100g protein, beef 36g/100g protein

You tell me why that default position of humanity is wrong.

it's wrong. we have evolved to the point where we can survive without meat and where our sensibilities are more interested in animal welfare

In particular you have to explain why inflicting pain or death is axiomatically wrong.

because the suffering and killing of other animals causes me suffering

You seem to appeal to some supposed universal moral principle to which I am supposed to agree and therefore concede your argument.

until now i was talking to you as a person who wd usually agree that animal suffering is wrong. not a philosophy undergraduate who asks for axioms. the axiom
wd be this - because the suffering and killing of other animals causes me suffering

Why is anyone bound to assent to it?

they will only assent to it if they become aware of animal suffereing and suffer themselves by being exposed to it and become aware of the unnecessary nature of animal slaughter. they need to be educated and then act on that education.. some cd be eductaed and be indifferent to animal slaughter. becasue meat consumption is unnecessary and predicated on pleasure, these people are then identified as sadists, demmanding the pain of other beings for their pleasure.

go walk into the nearest RSPCA centre and ask them about the axiomatic requirements of animal suffering.

First, It's not just protein, their are vitamins in minerals in meat and dairy.

Second, your point about where we are today is of little relevance to the initial part of the topic, which is hobbits eating meat. There is no evidence they had access to soy: isn't it OK for them to eat meat even if it is not the case for us?

Third, I am not a philosophy undergraduate. However the question of whether it is right or wrong to eat meat is a question of moral philosophy. The question of whether animals or humans have free will or choice is a question of philosophy too. Using philosophical language is entirely appropriate: look at the title of the board.

Fourth the fact that animal suffering causes you suffering is a fact particular to you and is not therefore an axiom in the sense of a proposition which is self evidently true.

Fifth, you have a poor understanding of what a sadist is. a sadist is someone who derives pleasure from the suffering of others and inflicting it, it is the fact that the suffering is occuring that is the source of the pleasure. The mere fact that suffering is a byproduct of something that gives pleasure does not make the enjoyment of it sadistic. For example, anyone who has been hit by a cricket ball knows that it hurts. There are frequent injuries in cricket, indeed recently a Test Player was killed by a ball. This does not mean that watching cricket is sadistic, despite the fact that pain and indeed death have been a consequence of it.

Sixth, I doubt that most supporters or members of the RSPCA are vegetarian, let alone vegan.

[redrobot]

i dont eat meat, i dont contibute in any direct way to the slaughter of animals. i feel i am not cruel. this is better than eating meat and knowing i contribute to the cruel practices of livestock farming.

[RoseMorninStar]

Cruelty can take a multitude of forms, and yes, it should be avoided in all forms.

The topic is whether or not Hobbits are wrong to be carnivores (omnivores). They lived in an agrarian society and I might imagine, meat was likely not a main source of sustenance but supplemental and an important insurance against crop failure due to numerous difficulties; drought, fire, flood, insects/pests, plant viruses, molds, etc... Oxen or horses might be utilized for plowing and their waste for fertilizing plants. Chicken (waste) fertilizer is great and they also eat insects. The Hobbits (and Elves, Dwarves, or Men) of Middle Earth were not cruel for cultivating food to eat for survival.

[redrobot]

The Hobbits (and Elves, Dwarves, or Men) of Middle Earth were not cruel for cultivating food to eat for survival

it is quite possible to be cruel even when you are doing something out of necessity.

another point to note is that prior to slaughter, livestock ^farming* is a cruel business. evidence the hobbit dragging the pig thro the street by a rope. if it's tied up or behind a fence it's cruel. milking causes cow mastitis. cruel to do it. it cd well be that in a fantasy world mastitis does not exist. but we are constantly compelled to make comparisons with the world we know because the two places rely on the same or similar environment - mountains, streams, sky, male, female etc etc. where do we stop with the cause and effect overlaying?

[siddharth]

It's wrong. we have evolved to the point where we can survive without meat.

No we haven't. A Vegan diet is unhealthy and leads to several deficiencies and diseases. Rose already told you about Soy and the harm that it causes by excess of it.
Apart from that you can't get Vitamin A from a plant-based diet. Plants have Carotene which is a precursor of Vitamin A. And it takes a LOT of Carotene in the body to get converted into moderate levels of VitA. VitD (the natural VitD3 that is) is exclusively found in eggs, cod live oil and dairy products. Which is why cultures evolving in darker environments such as the Scandinavians relied heavily on Salmon. The same case with the FAT-soluble VitK2. Any Calcium supplements take will have no effect if there is no VitK2 to go with it as it is it's transporter. With all the unused excess Calcium in your body, it'll get redirected to your arteries causing other complications. In addition to these there are the omega-3-acids, EPA and DHA found only in animals. Cholesterol (the good one), found only in animal products. And so on. The list is quite long, really.
Moreover recent studies by Dr.Campbell McBride and Ballantyne have shown that animal products are a non-negotiable, essential part of healing leaky gut which addresses autoimmunity - a condition which billions are suffering from right now.

We have not evolved to the point where we can survive without animals and their products.

i dont eat meat, i dont contibute in any direct way to the slaughter of animals.

Vegans rely heavily on fruits and vegetables. Hence Vegans increase the market for such. Most fruits, vegetables and most nuts need pollination. By bees. Not free bees, but slave bees kept in cages by beekeepers. Release the bees and you lose your steady supply of vegetables. You need bees to have your salads.
Now coming to Organic foods. Sadly, they aren't as pesticide-free as you'd hope them to be. As a rule, if you can't control pests,you can't produce produce on a profitable scale.
Any kind of produce requires tilling of the land. No matter what you do, small earthworms or rats will die under the farmers' tractors. Your Vegan food came at the costs of several lives.

Moving on to the ethics.

Research shows Plants are capable of feeling pain, feeling emotions.
Some ongoing researches show that fish, after all, might not feel pain.
What happens to the ethics then? Should Vegans start eating fish? Would they be able to stop feeding on plants?

If we truly believe that no living thing should have to die for our dinner, we shouldn’t eat at all. If we truly believe that all life deserves equal respect, why not equalize ourselves by embracing the elegant fact that we are all, as Nelson writes, “driven by the same hungers that motivate any other creature— the squirrel in the forest, the vole in the meadow, the bear on the mountainside, the deer in the valley”?

Our ecosystem relies on a self-regulating balance of predators and prey. This system worked well with humans and their prey until we began inhumane farming practices that compromise the wellbeing of animals, the health of humans, and the health of the planet. Vegan diets demand a higher quantity of cereal grains and soy, crops which have been destroying the ecosystem due to mass farming techniques. On the other hand, grass-grazing animals replenish the stripped soil.

[redrobot]

i have stumbled by with veganism for a decade, not caring too much about the dietary requirements demanded of me by carnivores (omnivores) and their pharmaceutical friends. you are no doubt right about what you say but i wd rather die a protracted death from vitamin deficiency than start killing animals. it's a little ask.

[siddharth]

You are free to believe that even though that isn't the case...as stated by me (and others) above which you have chosen to ignore.

[redrobot]

You are free to believe that even though that isn't the case...as stated by me (and others) above which you have chosen to ignore.

this does not make sense

[GlassHouse]

Someone has to do it.

The Rabbit of Caerbannog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCI18qAoKq4

[Minardil]

I only eat meat. I like to go to restaurants and order their vegetarian specials, but I always ask them to add sausage to it, or better yet, veal.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

[hamlet]

I only eat meat. I like to go to restaurants and order their vegetarian specials, but I always ask them to add sausage to it, or better yet, veal.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

And here I was hoping you'd have said " but they always seem to be out of vegetarians." Guess I'm just crazy. Or, maybe, instead of carnivore hobbits this is Cannibal Hobbits?

[Minardil]

I only eat meat. I like to go to restaurants and order their vegetarian specials, but I always ask them to add sausage to it, or better yet, veal.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8

And here I was hoping you'd have said " but they always seem to be out of vegetarians." Guess I'm just crazy. Or, maybe, instead of carnivore hobbits this is Cannibal Hobbits?

Dude, the one thing no one ever runs out of is fekkin' vegetarians.

[hamlet]

True enough, though the places I tend to dine usually don't have vegan options and even true vegetarian options are a bit sparse at times. Not quite fair maybe, but them's the breaks in a country where very large grass depletion machines and wide open spaces brought us lots and lots of relatively inexpensive meat for a long time.