The Energon Pub

And at the same time, we have animal rights organizations like PETA and SPCA.

Don't forget that Nature intended some animal species to hunt and kill other animals for food. Those animals were even designed with deadly teeth and claws - and their killing scenes aren't exactly the prettiest sight.

Obviously, we humans are no exception.

Do we "humanely" kill animals so we can have chicken, beef, pork, etc. for our table? Or should we feel guilty about enjoying our spicy buffalo wings at Super Bowl?

is it cruel to to kill literally millions of organisms by dunking them in acid?


no one gives a rat's arse about the literally billions of microrganisms humans kill everyday, and most of the deaths are cuased by mechanisms you wouldn't dream of scaling up to take out a cow.

speciests.

Microorganisms are on suuuuuuuuch a simpler level than such creatures and fish and mammals.

Dunk germs in acid. They have no brains. They have no consciousness. The same can be said of plants. Any living organism being considered morally wrong is stupid. You might as well stop eating.


But I think the vien of the question is more like, where do we draw the line. The line is at one of two things: intelligence level and/or ability to be domesticated.

Pigs are really smart, but how often do we train them and actually go the extra mile to value their company, compared to cats and dogs? Not much. Cows and chickens are not very smart. All three of these animals fit the bill of slaughter.

Dogs and cats, on the other hand, they relate to us too well. Not just us to them, I mean them to us. A dog is so happy when you come home. Sometimes seeing the dog is the best part of coming home. An animal that loves you that much should never be eaten. A wolf that tries to rip your throat out? Grill it up. A bear that takes a swipe at you? Grill it up. Of course, those animals aren't good to eat anyway.

Obscure animals like Buffalo and Horse? Depends. Buffalo is really really good. I love Buffalo burgers. How smart are they? Not that much. Horse? Some would rate horses with dogs and cats, and I can see it. Probably no, then.

Then there's whale and dolphin. Whales and Dolphins are almost as smart as we are, maybe even as smart. Dolphins are between us and chimps. And Whales and Dolphins like us, or seem to. Whaling is an abhorrent practice. Would you trap a child in a huge factory vessel and carve it up alive? You might as well if you whale. To hell with the whaling industry. Sometimes I can buy right into PETA and Eco-Terrorism when it comes to whaling. And I don't care if it's a traditional part of Japanese culture or whatever. Sushi's great, and as far as I know, I've never eaten whale, but they need to get with the times, just like certain aspects of the political spectrum, some traditions are distructive and wrong and need to stop. Period.

And while I'm at it, all the cultures that eat dog need to stop as well. It's not the reincarnated soul of an evil person. It's an innocent being with the brain of a five year old kid. Enough already. Your tradition is wrong.

So the answer really is: how do the animals take to us, therefore, how do they relate to humanity? And how smart is it?


As for the conditions of slaughterhouses and methods of killing, that's another debate, which I don't know enough about. We're talking about killing and eating in general. If I had to pick a side, I'd say go free-range all the time, but you can't always be sure.

and yet certain microorganisms will flee(if it can) from light and heat and other factors strong enough to kill it. can you say that of an unconscious human being?

certain microorgansims will not become aggressive until there are enough of them to hold off a hosts immune repsonse, how many strategists in human conflicts can plan while unconscious?

define consciousness, define pain

on what criteria are microrganisms simpler?

Tammuz wrote:and yet certain microorganisms will flee(if it can) from light and heat and other factors strong enough to kill it. can you say that of an unconscious human being?

certain microorgansims will not become aggressive until there are enough of them to hold off a hosts immune repsonse, how many strategists in human conflicts can plan while unconscious?

define consciousness, define pain

on what criteria are microrganisms simpler?

The higher cognitive functions of the mammal brain. Thoughts. Opinions. Ideas.

Cells do some amazing things, yes. There's no denying the chemistry of just one single cell is extremely complicated.

But it's only a trillionth of a brain as we know it.

Whatever you eat has to be killed, be that animals or plants (or fungi, if you like mushrooms!). I suppose fruit might be an exception to that as you can eat apples for instance without killing the tree.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Tammuz wrote:and yet certain microorganisms will flee(if it can) from light and heat and other factors strong enough to kill it. can you say that of an unconscious human being?

certain microorgansims will not become aggressive until there are enough of them to hold off a hosts immune repsonse, how many strategists in human conflicts can plan while unconscious?

define consciousness, define pain

on what criteria are microrganisms simpler?

The higher cognitive functions of the mammal brain. Thoughts. Opinions. Ideas.

Cells do some amazing things, yes. There's no denying the chemistry of just one single cell is extremely complicated.

But it's only a trillionth of a brain as we know it.

so it's okay to eat very young babies? or sleeping people? or people with brain damage

and i still don't get on what criteria you make humans the ore complex organism.

Dark Zarak wrote:Microorganisms are on suuuuuuuuch a simpler level than such creatures and fish and mammals.

Dunk germs in acid. They have no brains. They have no consciousness. The same can be said of plants. Any living organism being considered morally wrong is stupid. You might as well stop eating.


But I think the vien of the question is more like, where do we draw the line. The line is at one of two things: intelligence level and/or ability to be domesticated.

Pigs are really smart, but how often do we train them and actually go the extra mile to value their company, compared to cats and dogs? Not much. Cows and chickens are not very smart. All three of these animals fit the bill of slaughter.

Dogs and cats, on the other hand, they relate to us too well. Not just us to them, I mean them to us. A dog is so happy when you come home. Sometimes seeing the dog is the best part of coming home. An animal that loves you that much should never be eaten. A wolf that tries to rip your throat out? Grill it up. A bear that takes a swipe at you? Grill it up. Of course, those animals aren't good to eat anyway.

Obscure animals like Buffalo and Horse? Depends. Buffalo is really really good. I love Buffalo burgers. How smart are they? Not that much. Horse? Some would rate horses with dogs and cats, and I can see it. Probably no, then.

Then there's whale and dolphin. Whales and Dolphins are almost as smart as we are, maybe even as smart. Dolphins are between us and chimps. And Whales and Dolphins like us, or seem to. Whaling is an abhorrent practice. Would you trap a child in a huge factory vessel and carve it up alive? You might as well if you whale. To hell with the whaling industry. Sometimes I can buy right into PETA and Eco-Terrorism when it comes to whaling. And I don't care if it's a traditional part of Japanese culture or whatever. Sushi's great, and as far as I know, I've never eaten whale, but they need to get with the times, just like certain aspects of the political spectrum, some traditions are distructive and wrong and need to stop. Period.

And while I'm at it, all the cultures that eat dog need to stop as well. It's not the reincarnated soul of an evil person. It's an innocent being with the brain of a five year old kid. Enough already. Your tradition is wrong.

So the answer really is: how do the animals take to us, therefore, how do they relate to humanity? And how smart is it?


As for the conditions of slaughterhouses and methods of killing, that's another debate, which I don't know enough about. We're talking about killing and eating in general. If I had to pick a side, I'd say go free-range all the time, but you can't always be sure.

Hhmm... are all microorganisms single cell? It's been a while since any biology. I think all living matter has a consciousness, be it single or multicell. something compels it to grow and advance leaving that if some part of it didn't realize it was alive it would just wither and die.
Any way, I see no harm in slaughtering animals to sustain life. And I love lamb. Just think that cute little baby sheep standing there crying for it's mother, then 'Whack!'. Delicious roast leg of lamb.
Now, I don't have cable so I get the crap channels. One of them happens to be the Jesus channel. They are teaching people that the T-Rex was not a meat eater. No, in fact the big sharp teeth were required to bite through large melons. Serious. They even showed a picture, it was so funny. I don't buy into this as why would animals nowadays be meat eaters?
I really don't care what PETA says, NOTHING, short of diseased meat will keep me away from my thick, juicy porterhouse or tasty baby back pork ribs.

Eating meat in and of itself is not cruel. The rest depends on context. How the animal was raised, how it was slaughtered and so on.

Dark Zarak wrote:And while I'm at it, all the cultures that eat dog need to stop as well. It's not the reincarnated soul of an evil person. It's an innocent being with the brain of a five year old kid. Enough already. Your tradition is wrong.

The cultures that eat dogs do so because they don't care about dogs. We largely don't care about pigs despite them being as bright as dogs. So we eat 'em. The idea that dogs are the reincarnated form of someone who deserved it is silly, though.

Me eat food.
Me eat meat.
Me don't give a crap about PETA.
PETA can kiss my omnivore ass.
Ooooooooh. Steak.

Right and wrong are determinate on perspective. In the goal of sustaining the human race (or a single person), the destruction of other forms of life is the most efficient way to sustain our own, despite the occasional triggering of the "compassion complex", an emotion exhibited in most herding or family-unit creatures that evolved to better glue the functions of a survival unit together.

We're naturally omnivorous-- the direct consumption of large amounts of protein is what accounts for our over-sized craniums and simplified digestive system. We'd literally be stupid (or non-existent) if we hadn't taken a meat-eating path in our existence.

Now, as for what to eat, it really doesn't matter as long as it keeps one alive, although many are highly inclined based on taste, which basically leaves out the consumption of human flesh-- meat takes the form of whatever the organism's diet is, and, frankly, most of us eat crap. I could personally see maybe eating a vegan or a vegitarian-- they at least pay attention to what goes down their gullet.

However, the eating of other people is usually counterproductive to the above-stated goal of sustaining the group itself, so it makes sense to take sustinence from other sources. You can say don't eat animals because they feel pain, but that's true for pretty much all forms of life-- it's shown that body cells literally 'scream' when adjacent to alcohol, and is based on the "compassion complex", which, although there for rational reasons, doesn't always provide a rational end. And, as we have yet to invent an efficient way of synthesizing non-organic food, eating another organism is near impossible, so the act will cause pain. Therefore, until then, I'll usually eat what I want.

Yeah, its cruel...but it taste sooo goood!

I am always astonished by the idea that our ability to reason precludes us ethically consuming or killing other oragnisms.

In conjunction with my right to basic self-preservation, any organism which intends to harm me will be dealt with accordingly. This includes everything the bacteria in my toilet, infestations of my living space, to the rabid dog which happens to confront me while I'm taking a walk.

It has nothing to do with taking pleasure in causing suffering.

As long as the animals are killed in a human manner (no shoving a rod up their ass and shocking them to death, that's horrible.) I'm good. It's life and natural progerssion. Preditors in the wild rip their kill apart most of the time so I don't really think that us killing them is really cruel, though I do feel sympathetic that they're raised to be killed.

Tammuz wrote:so it's okay to eat very young babies? or sleeping people? or people with brain damage

That would be cannibalism, so no. And if cannibalism were not wrong: I really can't say. Maybe some tribesman somewhere could tell you.

But I've heard babies are quite good with a light wine sauce.

Tammuz wrote:and i still don't get on what criteria you make humans the ore complex organism.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that one cell, no matter how complicated it may be inside, is still less so than an entire vast network of trillions of them, in different forms, working together.

DISCHARGE wrote:Hhmm... are all microorganisms single cell? It's been a while since any biology.

No. Protozoans like the amoeba are single-celled. Bacteria like salmonella and ecoli are multi-celled. The next level up is fungus, then plants, then animals. Virus's are less than one cell. They are mostly DNA (RNA?) bits in capsules that spread and "rewire" your existing cells to make more viruses instead of what it should be doing.

DISCHARGE wrote:Now, I don't have cable so I get the crap channels. One of them happens to be the Jesus channel. They are teaching people that the T-Rex was not a meat eater. No, in fact the big sharp teeth were required to bite through large melons. Serious. They even showed a picture, it was so funny. I don't buy into this as why would animals nowadays be meat eaters?

My hatred for Jesus freaks (note the difference between that and Christians in general) knows no bounds short of genocide and rape.

Kjell wrote:The cultures that eat dogs do so because they don't care about dogs. We largely don't care about pigs despite them being as bright as dogs. So we eat 'em. The idea that dogs are the reincarnated form of someone who deserved it is silly, though.

Yes, but do pigs endear themselves to us? Do they make good pets? My point is that dogs are more human than pigs.

DesalationReborn wrote:I could personally see maybe eating a vegan or a vegitarian-- they at least pay attention to what goes down their gullet.

I can sig that right? Good.

i name thee specieset Dark Zarak, your views are based soley on what is more human, and you consider being more human synonymous with better. why is cannabalism instantly out the window?

for a start your biology is flawed; Salmonella and E. Coli are single celled, and then you create a hierachy that has nothing to do with complexity and is purely based on how far from human each category is in your own mind.

and i ask you, is being able to everything a human requires 50 different kinds of cell to do, in a single cell make somthing simpler.

think of all the things a computer can do, you can watch TV, or DVDs, you can burn CDs, you can listen to music, you can store files, write things. is a laptop really simpler than a TV, DVD player, CD burner, stereo, filing cabinet, and typewriter?

Fine sue me, so salmonella and ecoli are single-celled. Big whoop. Wanna fight about it? That doesn't change my arguement or my point to DISCHARGE that not all micro-organisms are single-celled.

Second of all, I never said once that being human is being better. I said a human has more intelligence than certain other animals which I deemed eatable.

Cannibalism is out the window because it is too far removed from my state of thinking to consider in an arguement in what can and cannot be eaten. Perhaps a tribesman that practices it can explain better than I can when it is and isn't appropriate to eat someone. I would say never, otherwise I would advocate eating whales and dogs as well, which I don't. I made the assumption that eating humans is wrong, and therefore based my entire arguement off that. Both my points relate back to how close to human they are.

Just to repeat once more what I'm getting at:
Certain animals are very close to human in certain ways. Eating humans is wrong. Therefore, eating those animals is wrong.

Don't you realize what PETA really stands for... I'll tell ya for those who don't know.

People....Eating....Tasty....Animals

On thing thats gets me is eating animals to the point of extinction. For me as long as the population is sustained then eat the thing. To many species have meet their ends at the hands humans whos foresight is blinded by greed.
Personally there are animals i would perfer not to eat but i dont hold that against those who do.
In my view you either are ok with eating them all or none. And your reasons for not eating meat cant be because you cant kill a living thing and then go out and kill and eat other living organisms like plants and feel high and mighty just because it didnt scream.

Bruciarsi wrote:On thing thats gets me is eating animals to the point of extinction. For me as long as the population is sustained then eat the thing. To many species have meet their ends at the hands humans whos foresight is blinded by greed.
Personally there are animals i would perfer not to eat but i dont hold that against those who do.
In my view you either are ok with eating them all or none. And your reasons for not eating meat cant be because you cant kill a living thing and then go out and kill and eat other living organisms like plants and feel high and mighty just because it didnt scream.

So if you were in Vietnam, would you eat dog, and then go home and pet your new puppy?

You have to have standards about what to eat and not eat. Some animals are too close to us to eat. Dogs, Cats, Pork perhaps, primates, whales, dolphins...

Dark Zarak wrote:

Bruciarsi wrote:On thing thats gets me is eating animals to the point of extinction. For me as long as the population is sustained then eat the thing. To many species have meet their ends at the hands humans whos foresight is blinded by greed.
Personally there are animals i would perfer not to eat but i dont hold that against those who do.
In my view you either are ok with eating them all or none. And your reasons for not eating meat cant be because you cant kill a living thing and then go out and kill and eat other living organisms like plants and feel high and mighty just because it didnt scream.

So if you were in Vietnam, would you eat dog, and then go home and pet your new puppy?

You have to have standards about what to eat and not eat. Some animals are too close to us to eat. Dogs, Cats, Pork perhaps, primates, whales, dolphins...

If it was customary to eat the dog to not insult your guest I guess I would try the dog. Gross as it sounds. I eat fish and have fish as pets, but I wouldn't eat my fish that are my pets. Some animals are too tough or stringy or the meat is just not appealing to peoples palette, I would say that is why certain animals are not eaten. Countries like Vietnam have times they are low on fresh food supplies and eat what is around. If you had no food but wild dogs, feral cats or were overrun by rats and were very hungry you might just break down and eat one.
The intelligence level has nothing to do with the consumption of any animal. Age plays little part in it too.
Don't get me wrong, I like animals just as much as the next guy. Sometimes they need a little bar-b-que sauce though.

I just eat what I want to eat and don't eat what I don't want to eat. I don't eat dog because the culture I grew up in does not incorporate the consumption of canine meat. Were I to go to, say, Vietnam as you suggest, I would not actively go to some restaurant and order dog. Would I eat it if offered? I'm not sure. It would depend on the circumstances.

I would eat an animal as long as it was killed humanely. A lot of the animals killed by other animals don't die painlessly. We at least offer the animal we're going to consume, a chance at having a painless death.

Animals kill and eat other animals to survive. Humans kill and eat animals to survive. Animals will kill and eat humans to survive. It is the way life is.
For the last one I mentioned if anybody doesn't believe me, ever hear of Timmy Treadwell and the grizzly bears, or the fact that mountain lions sometimes will hunt and eat humans? Sad there isn't a animal version of PETA, where it is wrong to eat humans. It would make traveling in mountain lion country less hazardous. Not that I support the idea of letting animals eat humans. That is abhorrent. But I believe PETA sometimes has a romantized view of animals, that we should not eat them and so on, but some animals if given a chance will gladly eat us.

I see another topic has been brought up-- the conservation of natural resources-- including that of animals. Again, while I'l generally eat what I want, I can more than abstain from consumption of anything for long periods if it means it will prevent the extinction of the food source, instances being the slaughter of the American Bison, which went from 100 million to less than a hundred by the turn of the century, and the continued hunting of endangered whales by the Japanese and Norwegians. Others can post sites if they want, but one photo I discovered speaks volumes:


And, yes Zarak, you can use that quote.

What is that picture of?

Bison skulls?


It's sad, but they're on the rise again. Go to Montana, one of the reddest states of the union, they have buffalo preserves, where they're protected. Some of them are killed though, but it's all controled to ensure that they come back again. They could have been lost. It's frightening to think how close they came.

Oh, and Buffalo burgers are soooo damn good. I don't see any hypocrisy there because of the situation with the preserves.