So, ethical boundaries are extremely foolish? Yes, our laws are self-serving, but do you feel we shouldn't have them as we can't objectively measure the value on "life" for all creatures?

Again, no, it's wholly dependent on the development of the nervous system. As far as I know, worms don't *suffer* in the same manner we would if cut.
As I mentioned in my initial post, we don't have canine teeth. We are anatomically omnivores; we don't have herbivore or carnivore specializations.

Hi Ruthless Logic!!

In primary cultures they did make certain animals sacred, mainly because these animals were their main food source, in other words the life of a given animal species became the life of their people. With the plains indians it was the buffalo, on the west coast it was the salmon. Althrough there was some guilt involved in the killing of other animals, the inactment of a myth as ritual delt with this, in killing, the animal's soul was released to return to its spiritual home, it was thought then to return again for another visit another ritual--kind of a renewable resource. Sensitivity to killing and consumption seems to have had a very long history.

I see what you are suggesting, but I do not think that the performance of rituals by natives was influenced by guilt or sensitivity, but rather as a function of dealing with the uncertainty of their natural world and where their next meal comes from. By performing rituals to the "Gods", the natives probably felt less anxious and more in control (illusion) of their volatile and fragile future.

First, you need to wrap your mind around the empirically provable truth that the creation and delivery of LIFE simultaneously causes DEATH. After you fully absorb this "new" level of awareness, your self-serving, idealistic propensities for assigning increasing or decreasing values to animal-fish-plant-insect should be tempered based on the realization that your emotionally subjective inferences only serve to expose you to the unending and stupidly simplistic accusations of hypocrisy.

As others have asked, where is the line? One can honestly not see the line. Sure, you can refrain from eating animals (mind you, the animals are dead either way), but what does this really change? Unless one completely secludes themselves from society, they will be contributing no matter what to the death of various life-forms. Do these same "vegetarians" not drive cars (harmful emissions for many mammalian creatures), live in houses (destruction of natural habitat), wear clothes (destruction of habitat, in addition to killing of various forms of bacteria, insects), eat grain and vegetables (harvesting kills small rodents and various life-forms)*, or take walks (destruction of insects, insect habitats)?

Also, here is a quote of information relating to your self-denial of human canine teeth.
Humans have small canines that project slightly beyond the level of the other teeth-thus, in humans alone among the primates, rotary chewing action is possible. In humans there are four canines, one in each half of each jaw. The human canine tooth has an oversized root, a remnant of the large canine of the nonhuman primates. This creates a bulge in the upper jaw that supports the corner of the lip.

If I place a minute squeezing pressure on a worm, it will squirm and convulse like mad.

Is it suffering?

I never said a vegetarian diet is necessarily unhealthy. I'm speaking about your statement: "It's a healthier way to go". Nutritionally, no, this is not necessarily true. I just don't like to see misinformation spread because you're advocating your diet. Say it's good to do or whatever belief you have, but don't say it's necessarily nutritionally healthier; it really depends.

I can absolutely wrap my mind around the fact that life causes death, that every waking moment I'm alive has caused death -- not just my upon my conception. I can even wrap my mind around the fact that no creature, from the amoeba to the anatomically-complex human, is *better* or *worse* than any other. In fact, I believe every form of life is equal, and I even suffer a secret pain knowing this, knowing that I contribute to the death of so many life-forms daily. Understanding, ultimately, I am a hypocrite, no matter how hard I try. With this said, I am not making accusations of hypocrisy, or least not in the manner you think I am; I am addressing a cycle of life, one of which we're all part. I'm not holding people accountable. What I meant to articulate is that we should not stand above others on a moral pedestal with our emotional subjective inferences.

With this said, at some point you must ask ourselves, "Where's the line?", "Where does it become unreasonable?". I'd like to refer you to part of my earlier post within this thread:



I understand that I must be forced to temper, I must be forced to make choice, and I do, we all do. And that was the point of that part of my post: If we actually considered every single way we were bringing death upon life, we wouldn't even be able to function! We must be reasonable here. This is not my stance, though: "stupidly simplistic accusations of hypocrisy", and I hope you understand that.


The propensity for the development of canine teeth does not imply we are carnivores. Gorillas, for instance, have canine teeth and are completely vegetarian (as far as I know). These teeth are for tearing, and are not nearly as sharp or elongated as many of our mammalian carnivore counterparts. According to my research, the the consensus is that humans are considered Omnivores. If you have some research documents that say otherwise however, I'd be very interested.

WikiAnswers - Is a gorilla an omnivore

Gorilla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gorillas are herbivores, eating fruits, leaves, and shoots"

They also ingest insects, but this hardly makes them carnivores.

EDIT: Upon further research, it appears they can be considered omnivores -- it's just their diets are generally vegetarian.

However, as I noted, canine teeth does not imply one is a carnivore. So, just because Humans have canine teeth does not mean we are considered carnivores. The general consensus is that we are regarded as omnivores.

First, you need to wrap your mind around the empirically provable truth that the creation and delivery of LIFE simultaneously causes DEATH. After you fully absorb this "new" level of awareness, your self-serving, idealistic propensities for assigning increasing or decreasing values to animal-fish-plant-insect should be tempered based on the realization that your emotionally subjective inferences only serve to expose you to the unending and stupidly simplistic accusations of hypocrisy.

The problem with this argument is that vegetarians do not reject the fact that living necessarily causes death. In the Buddhist tradition, for example, that's precisely the point: the idea is to develop mindfulness: to be aware that as you walk you are inadvertently crushing some life.

The fact that to be a human is to cause some suffering does not mean that humans should ignore the suffering we do cause. Take lies, for instance: at some point, we all say "the thing which is not", but our fallibility does not prevent us from trying to be as honest as possible.

The inherent deficit that is comprised of this type of revealed reasoning is the acknowledgement and subsequent measurable dismissal of objective analysis, while adopting the comingling of self-serving inferences that only offer the continuance of accusations of inconsistency, which indicates a lack of understanding that reconciliation is not a VIABLE endeavor, nor should it be, given the creating and expending model of our NATURAL WORLD.

Your clumsy use of language only serves to make your points unnecessarily confused.
For example: you use the phrase "revealed reasoning". Talk about ambiguity. Revealed by who? If I am the one who has "revealed" this reasoning, then you have not spent much time studying the matter. However, you might be using revealed as the term is often used in religious discourse: meaning something revealed made clear from experiencing God or the divine.
Because you use the word "revealed" I assume you have a reason for doing so.

In any case, you go on to talk about "objective analysis" and suggest that my rebuttal to your objection against vegetarianism is a dismissal of objective analysis. This suggestion is obviously false: my rebuttal consisted of statement of fact, a simply retelling of what some people argue.

You objected to vegetarianism on the grounds that vegetarians are ignorant of the fact "that the creation and delivery of LIFE simultaneously causes DEATH"; however, this assertion is demonstrably false. Any clear objective analysis of the subject will show that not all vegetarians reject the claim "that the creation and delivery of LIFE simultaneously causes DEATH", instead you will find that some arguments in favor of vegetarianism revolve around either that very same claim or very similar claims. Thus, your objection is not a convincing argument against vegetarianism, according to any objective analysis.

In the above quoted post you introduce a new objection to vegetarianism, one entirely different from the earlier objection to which I responded. This new objection is that "reconciliation" is not "a viable endeavor" and that "reconciliation" should not be a viable endeavor. Notice, however, that in the process of making this objection you neglect to provide any argument to support the objection: all you provide is an assertion. I suppose that is fine if you enjoy such an activity, but there is no reason for me or anyone else to even consider the assertion until you provide an argument.

MJA: What do you mean by humane? I ask because being or acting in a humane manner does not imply goodness. In addition, for a vegetarian being humane is an anthropocentric notion, something which most philosophically educated vegetarians would usually be very weary of announcing.