Human rights to dolphins?

[gcarter]

This thread has brought up some very interesting and very complex issues along with number of commonly held myths being sighted as part of mix.

First I will disclose that I tend to fall into the group that thinks that no animals other than humans should be (legally) classified as having "all human" rights. But it is only because no other animal (that we are currently aware of) is actually fully capable of nor should they be expected to, understand the entire amalgam of and grant in total reciprocity in kind, those rights.

That said ...... I do think we as the alpha cognizant species, sorely need to rethink just about every aspect of how we view and treat animals. In light of current and continuing research, study and knowledge and new information that is being brought to life daily, that dispels significant portions of previous thinking. Thinking that did and still permeates much of the belief systems still commonly in play. Which is also reflected by a number of statements being offered in this thread as fact, that are by in large now, little more than culturally held myths.

Myth #1 Meat or more correctly animal flesh is a "necessary" part of the human diet. This is patently false. All objective studies in the last 10 to 20 years show that everything beneficial to human diet can be obtained through non meat items. Period. There are literally thousands of current studies confirming this, if one cares to research it. Meat is still prevalent because of tradition, profitability, personal desire and entrenched infrastructure, not because of necessity.
Simple common sense dictates if animal flesh were in fact a necessity, the Buddhists would have died out over two thousand years ago.

[video=youtube;rNON5iNf07o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNON5iNf07o[/video]


Faith and Food - the way to your heart
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What are the main laws or beliefs relating to food?There are no set dietary laws in Buddhism. Buddhist dietary restrictions are structured very differently than those of the Abrahamic religions such as Judaism and Islam. In those religions, the dietary restrictions make a clear distinction between permitted foods and forbidden foods. By contrast, there is no such clear distinction between permitted and forbidden foods in Buddhism. Therefore, there is a great deal of diversity in Buddhist practise. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the time of the Buddha, the monks were expected to eat everything that was put in their begging bowl without discrimination, including meat or rotten food.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are some, particularly in the Mahayana school, who eat meat, fish and eggs. Others, particularly from China and Vietnam, refrain from eating the Five Pungent Spices such as garlic, onion and leek, because they are considered to increase one’s sexual desire and anger. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Tibetans will never eat fish, and usually stay away from fowl. The reason is that different kinds of meat supposedly give different kinds of obscurations. Fish, the obscuration of aggression; foul the obscuration of desire; and red meat the obscruration of ignorance. It was generally better to eat red meat because the animal killed was very large and only one life had to be taken to feed many people; with fish, you usually have to take many more lives to fill the same number of stomachs.[/FONT]

Myth #2 We know which species are self aware and not.
This "imaginary line of demarcation" is changing daily.
The truth is that most of the criteria perviously used to attempt to draw line demarcating the human animal from other animals is also fading and being dispelled on an ongoing daily basis.
Things like tool making, cognitive abilities in general , the supposed superior nature of cognitive based vs associative based learning and skill set ( predator vs prey) social and family and group structure, awareness of death etc. etc. etc.

Myth #3 We humans and only possibly a few other species are "self aware"
The truth is we really do not know the the exact level of self awareness or not, of most species.
Because we have convinced ourselves that we like the taste of and still eat flesh, we HOPE that the species we prey upon are somehow less self aware, but in truth it is guess work.

I am not trying to proffer a vegetarian only perspective, I still eat some fish. BUT I am saying We need be aware of exactly what we are doing and why when we take an animal life, we need to understand it is preference not necessity . We need to move into the 21 century in terms of knowledge belief systems and rhetoric, and quit clinging to and regurgitating 100 year old mythology.

 

[AfterDark]

I don't eat meat or anything else for the nutrients 1st. I eat because it tastes good. Why else eat?

 

[KevWind]

[video=youtube;rNON5iNf07o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNON5iNf07o[/video]

Thanks for quickie dissertation and being familiar with one school of Tibetan Buddhism I agree about strict dietary "laws" . Especially understanding the difference between the "practice" of Buddhism and normally what we think of as relating to "following most religions".

However to be clear, so there is no confusion. Many Buddhist's from the time of Siddahartha Gautama (the modern Buddha born aprox 500 BC) have also practiced not eating any animals and have thrived like I said.

Also one should be aware there are many agenda's not to mention billions and billions of dollars at play in the dissemination of information on nutrition. Making it wise to keep at objective arms length, about things floating about the 'internets"

For example as to your Youtube vid and author Lierre Keith there is this from James McWilliams " Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth is a book so riddled with errors and sloppy logic that, as I read it, I kept thinking that it would take a lifetime to undo, contextualize, and correct the myriad inaccuracies that mar this book. Turns out it doesn’t take a lifetime, but just a lot of patience and research acumen.

http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=1333

 

[AfterDark]

We are omnivores we can live with or without meat. So what's the big deal with the Buddhists? There was a time we mostly meat and lived and thrived enough to produce Buddhists. I'm glad I have a choice.

 

[maniago]

We are omnivores we can live [with] or without meat.

Exactly. While you're at it, pass me that plate of Soylet Green crackers please.

 

[danvolker]

And I'll have the "Fisherman's Platter"....a nice selection of lightly sauteed fisherman, in a medley of Seaweed Salad, and served in a foot long Fishing boat

 

[KevWind]

We are omnivores we can live with or without meat.

Bingo, Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself

So what's the big deal with the Buddhists?

Nothing really, I originally gave them as and example of people who have lived without eating meat and done so for a long time. For some reason gcarter decided to post the fact that some Buddhists do eat meat which is true, but his post was a bit vague and did not really delineate the fact that many Buddhist also do not eat meat. I reiterated that fact especially because the Woman in the video erroneously states that it is impossible to do so.

There was a time we mostly meat and lived and thrived enough to produce Buddhists. I'm glad I have a choice.

This is sort of but not quite totally correct, The actual diets of hunter gathers is to some degree speculative, but currently many anthropologists believe that most hunter gathers also ate lots of fruits and wild grains nuts and plants, and many believe they relied more on gathering than hunting , and what meat was eaten was of a wild nature and much less fat content the modern meat products and certainly minus steroids. Not to mention the fact that many anthropologists also believe that pre dating hunter gathers were hominids that were primarily plant eaters that occasionally opportunistically ate small animals.

---------- Post added February 21st, 2014 at 05:38 PM ----------

And I'll have the "Fisherman's Platter"....a nice selection of lightly sauteed fisherman, in a medley of Seaweed Salad, and served in a foot long Fishing boat

Perhaps planked Fisherman would be even better ! Arrggg burppp

 

[gcarter]

Bingo, Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself Nothing really, I originally gave them as and example of people who have lived without eating meat and done so for a long time. For some reason gcarter decided to post the fact that some Buddhists do eat meat which is true, but his post was a bit vague and did not really delineate the fact that many Buddhist also do not eat meat. I reiterated that fact especially because the Woman in the video erroneously states that it is impossible to do so.

You said:

Simple common sense dictates if animal flesh were in fact a necessity, the Buddhists would have died out over two thousand years ago.

Which is a false statement. The fact that some Buddhists also do not eat meat does not make the statement less false. The fact that I did not explicitly acknowledge that many do not eat meat is not relevant to the falsity of the assertion made. The statement that no Buddhists would have survived if they had to eat meat is false.

Also one should be aware there are many agenda's not to mention billions and billions of dollars at play in the dissemination of information on nutrition. Making it wise to keep at objective arms length, about things floating about the 'internets"

For example as to your Youtube vid and author Lierre Keith there is this from James McWilliams " Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth is a book so riddled with errors and sloppy logic that, as I read it, I kept thinking that it would take a lifetime to undo, contextualize, and correct the myriad inaccuracies that mar this book. Turns out it doesn’t take a lifetime, but just a lot of patience and research acumen.

http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=1333

I am not really interested in debating plant vs animal with you as food source, but you make a categorical statement...

Meat or more correctly animal flesh is a "necessary" part of the human diet. This is patently false. All objective studies in the last 10 to 20 years show that everything beneficial to human diet can be obtained through non meat items. Period.

...that claims the science is settled in this area when it is not. There is significant debate still occurring, and many positions previously taken as established gospel are being rethought by some well credentialed researchers in yes, objective studies. Do some reading on K2, for example.

My purpose in linking to that video was to present an alternate view. Is she 100% in her views? Probably not. But there is significant content in the video that is verifiable current science. I will note that the rebuttal comment you post, is from an author and blogger who describes himself as a historian - hardly himself any more credible a source of medical / nutritional information than she is. As an appeal to authority, your rebuttal carries no more weight than the video.

(FTR, I have not read the book and cannot comment on it - I have only watched this video. His comments on the book may or may not be fully relevant to what is stated in the video. A commentary on the video would be more on point than one on the book.)

I really do not care what your view is or whether you like this particular video. I am not setting out to convince you of anything - other that the fact that this is not settled as you assert.

The point is, taking a political or philosophical position and asserting it as scientific fact does not make it so. THAT is what I am challenging.

In both cases, you may have overstated your case for effect, or because you actually believe these statements to be true. I don't know. I just take issue with categorical statements.

 

[KevWind]

You said:



Which is a false statement.

No actually it not false at all, it is simple common sense and logic. If animal flesh were in fact a "necessity" for human survival then a group of humans that in fact did not eat flesh would not be able to sustain a viable population over a long period of time. This is in fact what the woman in the video states and is in fact false.

I am not really interested in debating plant vs animal with you as food source, but you make a categorical statement...

Ok your right, if you like I'll rephrase: I have yet find an objective scientific study or conclusive research that proves there is anything in animal flesh that can be shown to be:
#1 absolutely necessary and #2 absolutely not obtainable in any alternative form either plant based or supplement.

.

..that claims the science is settled in this area when it is not.

Stop putting words in my mouth I never once said "the science was settled "please read what I actually wrote . I said "All objective studies in the last 10 to 20 years show that everything beneficial to human diet can be obtained through non meat items. Period. There are literally thousands of current studies confirming this," Where exactly does that say 'the science is settled " ?

There is significant debate still occurring, and many positions previously taken as established gospel are being rethought by some well credentialed researchers in yes

, Yes indeed and no doubt that science is an ongoing and sometimes changing realm. (Which I also said) But alas you wish not to discuss the role large food conglomerates with vested interest in maintaining the status quo play in helping create distractive "debate" as opposed to objective scientific discussion .

Do some reading on K2, for example.

Ok like this " Natural K2 is also found in bacterial fermented foods, like mature cheeses and curd. The MK-4 form of K2 is often found in relatively small quantities in meat and eggs. The richest source of Natural K2 is the traditional Japanese dish natto^[23] made of fermented soybeans, which provides an unusually rich source of Natural K2 as long-chain MK-7: its consumption in Japan has been linked to significant improvement in K vitamin's status and bone health in many studies. The intense smell and strong taste, however, make this soyfood a less attractive source of Natural K2 for Westerners' tastes."

As I said have yet to find an objective study that establishes an essential nutrient found and obtainable exclusively in flesh.
If you can provide such link I'll be more than happy take a look and if convincing I would gladly return to eating the occasional elk backstrap.

The point is, taking a political or philosophical position and asserting it as scientific fact does not make it so. THAT is what I am challenging.I just take issue with categorical statements.

Good you should BUT
if your concerned about personal opinion presented as categorical fact why would you post a video riddled with such? I suspect if you were to step back and as critically and objectively analyze the categorical nature of many and out of context or erroneous of some statements in that video, as you are about my statements, you might find the video less informative. Gotta go go for now so Nuff said I guess we should agree to disagree . Kev

 

[Greenjuice]

I have yet find an objective scientific study or conclusive research that proves there is anything in animal flesh that can be shown to be:
#1 absolutely necessary and #2 absolutely not obtainable in any alternative form either plant based or supplement.

That is generally accepted to be correct. Vegans do need to supplement their diets or will suffer consequences.

http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/recommended-supplements-for-vegans.html

The issue is not what is in an omnivore diet, but what is missing from an exclusion diet. The same considerations are applied to all exclusion diets.