Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:45:39
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 22:53:31
> Hear that, a_k? We is heavyweights. ;-)
I thought I was a skeleton :-)
> I rely on my disputation of this quotation from the very first post in this thread. One which requires an essential predicate assumption to be true, whereas I do not believe it to be true:
> "For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialised societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at meal-times: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say "taste" deliberately - this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."
> I do not believe that it is "established beyond doubt". And all that flows from that assumption is as flawed as that fallacious predicate and foundational argument.Ah. Perhaps I should point out that that passage occurs partway through Singer's article. I just picked it out because I liked it :-)
The quote in the next thread preceeds that section (and justifies the 'specism' charge). And there is still more in front of that in the actual article. So that bit isn't a first premise, or foundation on which the argument rests. Refuting it isn't as crucial to Singers argument (that we should give comperable moral consideration to children and animals) than you might be thinking...
> Oh how about cave-men who have imperfectly tried to adapt to diets based on monoculture grain farming, while retaining meat consumption to ensure adequate diet?Ew, 'grain'.
Best I can figure there are other varieties of vegetables and soya is a kind of bean (???)We might wonder about the cognitive capacity of the cave man. ie whether ethics had evolved yet ;-)
> The Inuit have done very poorly when place on grain-based (so-called modern or western) foods, just for the record.Ew. Grain again.
> And are modern societies more ethical if they falsely believe that meat is not an essential component of a healthy diet?My understanding was that you were trying to say that suppliments were essential to a healthy diet. There isn't anything in meat that you cannot get from alternative sources.
> I think the evidence I provided fairly strongly suggests that a vegetarian diet requires some supplements (certainly B12 and vitamin D, if not zinc, iron, selenium, long-chain omega-3s, calcium, and iodine) for long-term health.And the following article talks about how to get them:
http://www.veganhealth.org/shv/
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466281.html