PETA's idea: Call fish 'Sea Kittens'

[Junghalli]

Kill the stupid, I like where your head is.

It seems pretty logical to me. The less capable of self-awareness and conscious perception a creature is, the less suffering it is capable of.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, they dont, but you do synthesize vitamin D in your skin through sun exposure. Granted it varies by location with how much you get and how long you need to bask like a lizard. Even if it is somewhat longer in your location, does it matter? The primary point is that you dont need to eat a kilo of cheese a week.

[Graeme Dice]

No, they dont, but you do synthesize vitamin D in your skin through sun exposure. Granted it varies by location with how much you get and how long you need to bask like a lizard. Even if it is somewhat longer in your location, does it matter? The primary point is that you dont need to eat a kilo of cheese a week.

Canadians eat 10.1 kg of cheese per capita in a given year. Americans eat 12.2 kg. Neither is anywhere close to a kg per week. The Italians (25 kg), French (25 kg) and Greeks (25-29 kg) all eat more, and all happen to have healthier populations than the U.S.

You also have obviously never lived in any kind of northern area if you think it's possible to get vitamin D from sunlight alone in Canada. Here in Edmonton you see no bare skin other than faces from about October to March (six months). For much of that winter period, the sun rises after you leave for work and sets before you leave for home. Even once the daylight hours extend past 6:00 in the evening you are still not likely to spend even 20 minutes outside without a pane of glass between you and the sun. There are still a hundred cases of Rickets in Canada every year.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Canadians eat 10.1 kg of cheese per capita in a given year. Americans eat 12.2 kg. Neither is anywhere close to a kg per week. The Italians (25 kg), French (25 kg) and Greeks (25-29 kg) all eat more, and all happen to have healthier populations than the U.S.

It is called hyperbole. Also an implied causation fallacy there. I would argue that those countries have a healthier population in spite of their levels of cheese consumption.

You also have obviously never lived in any kind of northern area if you think it's possible to get vitamin D from sunlight alone in Canada. Here in Edmonton you see no bare skin other than faces from about October to March (six months). For much of that winter period, the sun rises after you leave for work and sets before you leave for home. Even once the daylight hours extend past 6:00 in the evening you are still not likely to spend even 20 minutes outside without a pane of glass between you and the sun. There are still a hundred cases of Rickets in Canada every year.

See where I clarified that it depends on area? I lived in Alaska for 10 years and wouldn't see the sun for more than a few minutes a day for 6 months out of the year because it would rise while I was in school, and set before I got home.

[Graeme Dice]

It is called hyperbole. Also an implied causation fallacy there. I would argue that those countries have a healthier population in spite of their levels of cheese consumption.

You provided a matter of fact statement with a numerical quantity, and then when shown that your quantity was five times too large, you claimed that it was hyperbole. That's an awfully convenient way for you to avoid ever having to admit that you're wrong. An argument can't really be classified as hyperbole when the quantity is within an order of magnitude of the actual quantity. Your argument that those countries have healthier populations in spite of their dairy consumption is hardly compelling when you've not yet provided a single shred of evidence that dairy products are unhealthy.

You've also promoting rather ethically dubious behaviour when you start suggesting that we reduce our food production by moving away from industrialized farming. Organic farms are unlikely to be able to feed every person on the planet?

See where I clarified that it depends on area? I lived in Alaska for 10 years and wouldn't see the sun for more than a few minutes a day for 6 months out of the year because it would rise while I was in school, and set before I got home.

Are you planning to weasel out of _ever_ having to admit that you were wrong about something? You _still_ haven't shown that 20 minutes is enough time in _any_ location on the planet. As I've already shown, and as you've just admitted, it isn't feasible to obtain your vitamin D from sun exposure in large parts of the world.

[Knife]

The argument is predicated on the idea that for an individual trying to eat more ethically, going hunting once a year and bagging an elk or moose is better than eating cow.

And if everyone did it, you'd still have the problems you have now, even worse if everyone was up in the hills getting their venison for the McDeer burgers.

The industrialization is indeed the problem, not the cows themselves, so ideally the state should prevent the industrialization of venison.

Then ethically it would not be better then would it?

Humans can synthesize D vitamins from sunlight if I remember correctly, and even if we cant, I did not say cut out dairy, I said reduce. We do not need the ridiculous quantities we get today.

lol. Yes we can, we can even hold some where in the neighborhood of a months worth of Vitamin D in our liver, in a best case scenario which you're quickly learning isn't always the case. Not only do you have to account for the time in the sun, and the enviroment/weather to determin that especially in the winter months, but also melanin content in the skin because the more you have the more time in the sun it takes to synthesize the vitamin D. But hey, we can always have people eat vitamin D rich foods instead of milk, granted that means an increase in eating beef liver and various types of fish which leads us right back into the problem of the venison.

No. The damage is already done. Therefore utilizing the space (and in fact reusing it, as the old occupants have gone elsewhere) is a better option than buying a new house, which adds additional damage to the tally. Using an older house, relative to the alternative, is suffering neutral.

So we're right back to 'do the damage I need to now and later the damage is neutral to the new new damage.' Doesn't seem to ethical to me, rather just passing the buck. Your system just seems flawed man.

And why not? Most are harmless, and the ones that are not are rendered harmless with education.

You seem bent on thinking Arizona and/or Texas lawn critters are everyone elses critters. Errrm...no. How about I don't let deer mice keep their residency along with the potential of Haunta Virus in my neck of the woods. How about I don't let the other rodents with their disease potential keep their burrows by my house. As if a damn lizard were our only problems.

I can see having someone come by to remove a venomous snake from your yard if you get those, but a lot of problems would be lessened if people didnt freak out when they see something with more or less than two legs.

You're awefully short sighted for a biologist, or just biased, not sure which. Humans have spent thousands of years with various animals and it is well documented which ones are a threat to public health by now.

The garter snake cant hurt you. Neither can the Bull Snake, or even the Gila Monster if you dont put your hand in its mouth (yes, that is pretty much what you have to do get bitten by those) I can see not planting a wildflowers if you are allergic to bees as well. But barring that, there is no reason to find it undesirable for things like birds, squirrels, and toads to colonize your yard.

Thanks dad, I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever in that neck of the woods.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And if everyone did it, you'd still have the problems you have now, even worse if everyone was up in the hills getting their venison for the McDeer burgers.

Again, predicated on an individual decision. I am not a deontologist. If you want to argue like Kant and ask questions such as "what if everyone did it?" then that is fine, and there would be problems to deal with. As it stands now, an individual trying to eat red meat more ethically could stand to do a bit of hunting. I have already admitted that everyone doing it is undesirable.

Then ethically it would not be better then would it?

No. But we do not at present live in a world where that state of affairs exists. In other words, you are citing a fantasy world in order to argue the point. The situation can easily be solved as it is now. Regulating the hunt. More people already apply for hunting tags now than the state is willing to give them. Provided the rules are enforced this looks like a workable solution. At least for some parts of the population, and, if we want to argue like Kant (which you seem to like doing) when everyone reduces their meat consumption to sane levels.

lol. Yes we can, we can even hold some where in the neighborhood of a months worth of Vitamin D in our liver, in a best case scenario which you're quickly learning isn't always the case. Not only do you have to account for the time in the sun, and the enviroment/weather to determin that especially in the winter months, but also melanin content in the skin because the more you have the more time in the sun it takes to synthesize the vitamin D. But hey, we can always have people eat vitamin D rich foods instead of milk, granted that means an increase in eating beef liver and various types of fish which leads us right back into the problem of the venison.

To get your daily intake of vitamin D you dont exactly need to eat a shit-ton of any of those things. Small amounts of cheese, or some sort of animal liver will work just fine. Not (apparently) .2 kg of cheese a week, and on average (US anyway) ~.4-.5 kg of meat a day. You can do it with .35 ounces of salmon, or a bit of cod oil. Or if you live in the right area, 5-30 minutes of sunlight twice a week, according to the NIH.

I never once said cut any of these things out of your diet completely jackass. Only reduce them. This implicit False Dichotomy thing you have going on is getting on my nerves.

So we're right back to 'do the damage I need to now and later the damage is neutral to the new new damage.' Doesn't seem to ethical to me, rather just passing the buck. Your system just seems flawed man.

What would you propose then moron? Ever expanding housing developments? Lets take a look at your options.

1)You can not live anywhere. This is bad for you.
2)You can live in space that has already been converted to housing a long time ago. Be this a house, apartment. Whatever. This way you are not uprooting everything that lived in quarter acre or whatever it is a standard plot is in your area of space that would be cleared for new construction. In this way, while suffering happened in the past, you are not creating more.
3) You can construct a new house, clear a quarter acre of land and essentially sterilize it. This adds more suffering.

Right now your logic sounds a lot like
"Using data from unethically performed human medical research from 60 years ago is no less unethical than if i were to force people into a clinical trial now. All using that data is is passing the buck, so why not strap down a few hundred brown people?" The argument is exactly the same.

You seem bent on thinking Arizona and/or Texas lawn critters are everyone elses critters. Errrm...no. How about I don't let deer mice keep their residency along with the potential of Haunta Virus in my neck of the woods. How about I don't let the other rodents with their disease potential keep their burrows by my house. As if a damn lizard were our only problems.

Ok. And you think a grassy lawn is going to keep them out? Rodents tend to exist fairly easily alongside humans, even deer mice. If you have issues with them, take precautions. That is fine. But keeping a few specific species out is hardly the same as sterilizing your property.

Again, this False Dichotomy you like so much.

You're awefully short sighted for a biologist, or just biased, not sure which. Humans have spent thousands of years with various animals and it is well documented which ones are a threat to public health by now.

Again, taking precautions against disease carriers is one thing. Freaking out when you see something alive is another. I am not saying you need to make your home a haven for West-Nile carrying mosquitoes or plague rats.

The argument is one of marginal utility. Does it hurt you to allow a good number of native species to recolonize your yard after you have built your house? No. In fact many of these organisms are beneficial (Nothing like a bull snake to take out that deer mouse nest...) So the utility you (potentially) lose is low. The gain in terms of the habitat you provide for the non-harmful species that come to call your hard home, is potentially substantial.

Thanks dad, I'll keep that in mind if I'm ever in that neck of the woods.

Most necks of the wood have some species of squirrel, several bird species, and any number of toads.

ou provided a matter of fact statement with a numerical quantity, and then when shown that your quantity was five times too large, you claimed that it was hyperbole. That's an awfully convenient way for you to avoid ever having to admit that you're wrong.

Fine, I was wrong on quantity. It happens

Your argument that those countries have healthier populations in spite of their dairy consumption is hardly compelling when you've not yet provided a single shred of evidence that dairy products are unhealthy.

Unhealthy in large quantities. See, I was under the impression that a shitload of cheese was in fact generally accepted to be bad for one's cardiovascular health. Seems kinda common sense to me considering the fat content of a lot of cheese.

A 100 gram serving of cheddar cheese has 51% of your daily fat allowance, and 105% of your daily allotment of saturated fats, and 35% of your daily allotment of cholesterol. Do I need to go on? Your average 100 gram hunk of swiss cheese has a much lower fat content. But you see where I am going with this?

Also, where do you get your numbers for the cheese consumption?

Are you planning to weasel out of _ever_ having to admit that you were wrong about something? You _still_ haven't shown that 20 minutes is enough time in _any_ location on the planet. As I've already shown, and as you've just admitted, it isn't feasible to obtain your vitamin D from sun exposure in large parts of the world.

Turns out, provided you live in an area that gets sufficient sun, it is 5-30 minutes, at least twice a week.

The factors that affect UV radiation exposure and research to date on the amount of sun exposure needed to maintain adequate vitamin D levels make it difficult to provide general guidelines. It has been suggested by some vitamin D researchers, for example, that approximately 5-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10 AM and 3 PM at least twice a week to the face, arms, legs, or back without sunscreen usually lead to sufficient vitamin D synthesis and that the moderate use of commercial tanning beds that emit 2-6% UVB radiation is also effective [11,28]. Individuals with limited sun exposure need to include good sources of vitamin D in their diet or take a supplement.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

Alternatively, you could also eat a whopping 3.5 ounces of salmon, or a 6 OZ can of tuna...

[Alyrium Denryle]

I figured I would let this occupy a separate post.

When it comes to making your yard a suitable habitat for various organisms, and you are concerned with potentially dangerous organisms there are a few things to remember.

There there are hundreds of species living in your general area (if you are in North America. In europe, less because you drove a lot of stuff to extinction, if in the tropics, much much more...) out of those, only a few are in any way dangerous.

There are a few species of disease carrying ectoparsites like ticks, and mosquito. You can avoid the mosquitos by not allowing stagnant water to stick around for very long. You may or may not be able to avoid ticks. Frankly if ticks live in your area, and they almost always do the only way to keep them out is not have any plants whatsoever planted in the ground.

You might have a few arachnids that are problematic. Brown Recluse spiders come to mind. Not much you can do to avoid them being around no matter where you are (urban or rural). But bites are rare. Same with black widows. Just make sure if you use an outhouse (for whatever reason) you check before you sit down. Scorpions are only an issue in the southwest. Check your shoes.

You only have to worry about insects if you are allergic to stings. There is a person called an exterminator. If you have a bee or harvester ant problem, give them a call.

You might have some disease carrying rodents. Rats can carry the plague, deer mice Hanta Virus. The chances of them being around and carrying the diseases are low (from 1993 to 2007 there were less than 500 cases of Hanta Virus, and there are 9 annual reported cases of Plague). Chances are they already exist somewhere on your property no matter what you do and you only need to worry if you start noticing them. There is of course the solution of letting some native snakes dwell in your property. They are very good at finding rodent nests. Alternatively (if you dont have snakes) a call to an exterminator or even the do it yourself solution of rat poison will work to rid yourself of them.

You will be hard pressed to have to worry about birds unless you like to drink rainwater from your gutters or live in asia (sorry Shroom)

As for snakes, if you are in the US, there are only a few species of venomous snake in any given area. No area has more than 12, and that is in the SW. Anywhere else tops out at a half dozen easily recognized species. There is usually a herpetological association that is local you can call who will remove them for free. The others are nothing but beneficial, and kinda cool if you get a good look at them. Most of the time you will never notice even the venomous ones. If you live in Asia or S america... I am sorry... you have more venomous snakes. Same with you australia!

Other than the above, you are pretty much safe. Honestly you have more to worry about from your neighbors dog than you do from any of the above.

[Commander 598]

The garter snake cant hurt you. Neither can the Bull Snake

Only the totally ignorant, phobics, and total assholes are actually concerned about gartner snakes, it's the other set of snakes that the majority of people don't like which is where the bull snake comes in as it appears to look very much like more than one species of venemous snake (One around here could easily assume that it's a water moccasin) and act like a rattlesnake, not good adaptations for coexistence with humanity.

[Graeme Dice]

Again, this False Dichotomy you like so much.

You do realize that _you_ are the one presenting things as absolutes, then strategically retreating from them as the issues get pointed out? I believe that that would be called "moving the goalposts".

Unhealthy in large quantities. See, I was under the impression that a shitload of cheese was in fact generally accepted to be bad for one's cardiovascular health. Seems kinda common sense to me considering the fat content of a lot of cheese.

What does common sense have to do with food science? Why is your "impression", as a non-expert in the field, relevant to the discussion?

A 100 gram serving of cheddar cheese has 51% of your daily fat allowance, and 105% of your daily allotment of saturated fats, and 35% of your daily allotment of cholesterol. Do I need to go on?

Well, you could actually list how large, how active, and what sex that ideal person is supposed to be so that those numbers were useful instead of being essentially worthless.

Your average 100 gram hunk of swiss cheese has a much lower fat content. But you see where I am going with this?

Not really, since Greeks eat Feta, and the Italians and French are also not primarily eaters of Swiss cheese either.

Also, where do you get your numbers for the cheese consumption?

From the USDA and Health Canada. It's a little more difficult for the European countries, but you can find news articles that list cheese consumption.

Turns out, provided you live in an area that gets sufficient sun, it is 5-30 minutes, at least twice a week.

Which is where, exactly? You keep stating these sorts of things and ignoring the details that make them infeasible. Even your quote states that you have to be outdoors between 10 AM and 3 PM, which, once again, isn't feasible for a rather large proportion of the population.

Alternatively, you could also eat a whopping 3.5 ounces of salmon, or a 6 OZ can of tuna...

Yes, let's promote even more fish consumption. Market hunting hasn't ever led to the extinction of species before. There's still a billion passenger pigeons flying around the U.S. after all.

[Knife]

Again, predicated on an individual decision. I am not a deontologist. If you want to argue like Kant and ask questions such as "what if everyone did it?" then that is fine, and there would be problems to deal with. As it stands now, an individual trying to eat red meat more ethically could stand to do a bit of hunting. I have already admitted that everyone doing it is undesirable.

Your dodging the question asshole. Your suggestions were propagated by someone asking how to go about it ethically. Your solution isn't ethical in any sane system since expanded out to any reasonable volume for a community and/or culture; you're looking at exactly the same fucking then with another animal as you're looking at with cows. You're passing the buck, to salve your ego and guilt. Very short term thinking but bully for you.

No. But we do not at present live in a world where that state of affairs exists. In other words, you are citing a fantasy world in order to argue the point. The situation can easily be solved as it is now. Regulating the hunt. More people already apply for hunting tags now than the state is willing to give them. Provided the rules are enforced this looks like a workable solution. At least for some parts of the population, and, if we want to argue like Kant (which you seem to like doing) when everyone reduces their meat consumption to sane levels.

Ah, so now we're at the crux of the problem. No it's not ethical, thank you for your concession. So everything else is your blubbering to cover up that fact that you were wrong.

To get your daily intake of vitamin D you dont exactly need to eat a shit-ton of any of those things. Small amounts of cheese, or some sort of animal liver will work just fine. Not (apparently) .2 kg of cheese a week, and on average (US anyway) ~.4-.5 kg of meat a day. You can do it with .35 ounces of salmon, or a bit of cod oil. Or if you live in the right area, 5-30 minutes of sunlight twice a week, according to the NIH.

Hello? Scale, is that you?

If it is unethical to drink so much milk, to the point we need to shift our main source of vitamin D to something else, then that something else would have to be produced in such a quantity to the level that milk is now. Hence, if you pin your hopes on fish, your going to have to ramp up fish farming to a higher level. Same fucking problem as with the venison and you're still passing the buck and ignoring the problem.

I never once said cut any of these things out of your diet completely jackass. Only reduce them. This implicit False Dichotomy thing you have going on is getting on my nerves.

What a bunch of Deer shit, the false dichotomy is yours. I'm pointing out that your 'ethical way to eat and live' is seriously flawed and the best you can do is try to pass the buck on the issue. You picked an easy, short term answer that doesn't work out the further you take it and it is obvious. Too bad if that pisses you off.

What would you propose then moron? Ever expanding housing developments? Lets take a look at your options.

I would propose, that if you're going to stand on your soapbox and preen self righteous bullshit as ethics, that they are somewhat sustainable and self consistent.

Right now your logic sounds a lot like
"Using data from unethically performed human medical research from 60 years ago is no less unethical than if i were to force people into a clinical trial now. All using that data is is passing the buck, so why not strap down a few hundred brown people?" The argument is exactly the same.

lol, I'm not advocating anything asshole, except that if you're going to submit an ethical system, it fucking makes sense.

Ok. And you think a grassy lawn is going to keep them out? Rodents tend to exist fairly easily alongside humans, even deer mice. If you have issues with them, take precautions. That is fine. But keeping a few specific species out is hardly the same as sterilizing your property.

So now I can take precautions, just as long as I don't cross your imaginary line in the sand of what constitutes bad precautions. And what the fuck is 'sterilizing your property?' Is there some sort of fad of concrete yards?

Again, this False Dichotomy you like so much.

You keep using that word. I do-not think-a it means what you think-a it means.

Again, taking precautions against disease carriers is one thing. Freaking out when you see something alive is another. I am not saying you need to make your home a haven for West-Nile carrying mosquitoes or plague rats.

Ah, but deer mice (the major carrier of haunta virus) is apparently ok, just not those damn rats.

The argument is one of marginal utility. Does it hurt you to allow a good number of native species to recolonize your yard after you have built your house? No.

See, that's called an absolute and it's why I raised the bullshit flag on your preening. Does it hurt if you let some critters who are not dangerous, recolonize in your yard? No. Does that automatically equate to all or 'a good number of native species'? No.

And even still, if someone buys a house and yard and is deathly afraid on say...snakes, then yes it hurts them to let non-dangerous snakes recolonize their yard.

In fact many of these organisms are beneficial (Nothing like a bull snake to take out that deer mouse nest...) So the utility you (potentially) lose is low. The gain in terms of the habitat you provide for the non-harmful species that come to call your hard home, is potentially substantial.

Cats do that too, however some people are allergic to cats as well.

You seem to want to play some sort of red herring in that your position is better than mine. However, I don't have a position except that yours is full of holes.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Your dodging the question asshole. Your suggestions were propagated by someone asking how to go about it ethically. Your solution isn't ethical in any sane system since expanded out to any reasonable volume for a community and/or culture; you're looking at exactly the same fucking then with another animal as you're looking at with cows. You're passing the buck, to salve your ego and guilt. Very short term thinking but bully for you.

Ok, So the suggestion was poorly thought out. Do you have a better suggestion? Bear in mind my initial suggestion was also accompanied by an across the board meat intake decrease.

You've also promoting rather ethically dubious behaviour when you start suggesting that we reduce our food production by moving away from industrialized farming. Organic farms are unlikely to be able to feed every person on the planet?

Do we need to eat as many cows as we do? No. Is it healthy to eat as much meat as we do? Probably not. I fail to see how reducing the cow population, and perhaps shifting some of the agricultural land used to produce their feed to either human food crops, or let them begin vegetative succession (as the situation necessitated) is ethically dubious. You are operating under the assumption that cattle is an efficient way of providing for a population's nutritional needs. Basic thermodynamics applied to bio, to support kg of cow it takes 8-10 kilos of plants, and support 1 kg of person requires ~8-10 kilos of cow. Conversely, it would take ~8-10 kg of plant to support 1 kg of person.

Of course, that is assuming we think it desirable to keep the human population as big as it is.

If it is unethical to drink so much milk, to the point we need to shift our main source of vitamin D to something else, then that something else would have to be produced in such a quantity to the level that milk is now. Hence, if you pin your hopes on fish, your going to have to ramp up fish farming to a higher level. Same fucking problem as with the venison and you're still passing the buck and ignoring the problem.

Support for your implicit assumption that we need as much dairy as we consume in order to get the amount of Vitamin D that we need, considering we get it not only from the sun, but from a lot of other foods? That is the point. Sure, if you concentrate on any one source (other than basking in sunlight as the situation permits) then population wide you will cause problems. This is what happens when the human population is reaching the limit of what the planet's biosphere can support. That is why you get your D (or any other nutrient, or even calories) from multiple sources.

What does common sense have to do with food science? Why is your "impression", as a non-expert in the field, relevant to the discussion?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or have you really been hiding under a rock?

Mayoclinic
CDC
Here is a gem

What? You seriously think that the massive amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in cheese is healthy?

Not really, since Greeks eat Feta, and the Italians and French are also not primarily eaters of Swiss cheese either.

No, many of their cultural cheeses are even higher in fat content per gram than cheddar. Do I really need to list all European cheeses? I mean, I love cheese (to my detriment) I know quite a few different types. I only listed the above two as a quick sample.

Well, you could actually list how large, how active, and what sex that ideal person is supposed to be so that those numbers were useful instead of being essentially worthless.

I used a database of nutrition labels for that. Standards 2000 calorie diet moderate activity level. Of course there is going to be variation in activity level, metabolism, etc.

Here is the site.

http://www.nutritiondata.com/

Pick a cheese. It gives a pretty complete breakdown.

Which is where, exactly? You keep stating these sorts of things and ignoring the details that make them infeasible. Even your quote states that you have to be outdoors between 10 AM and 3 PM, which, once again, isn't feasible for a rather large proportion of the population.

Anywhere below 42 degrees latitude has enough sun you can do this all year save for between Nov and Feb. Below 34 degrees, you can do it year round. If you live in these climates, provided you can spare the time, you wont need any additional supplementation of D. Farther north, you may need supplementation outside of the summer.

Wait, you mean to tell me that a person cannot take a lunch break outside? Hell, that is just optimum, I am fairly certain going for a 45 minute walk in the early morning or in the evening after work would be doable for most people and will at least get you a good chunk of the D3 you need. Even if I grant the inability to do all of these things, and exclude weekends (say the poor hypothetical sap works two or three jobs to support a family, bad debts and a drug habit. Lets have some fun with it...) then there are other sources of vitamin D that if you combine them in a *gasp* well balanced diet, should provide for most of their nutritional needs, and if that fails, chewable vitamins. Mmmm tasty. If someone is in danger of getting rickets if they cut their milk intake by half, there is something wrong with the way they eat that extends farther than not drinking enough milk.

Yes, let's promote even more fish consumption. Market hunting hasn't ever led to the extinction of species before. There's still a billion passenger pigeons flying around the U.S. after all.

The salmon fishery is at present well regulated and sustainable. So is the tuna fishery (barring the species used in Sushi). Though I posted it as an example, one can of course get their needed vitamin D from a good number of other sources. Mix them, match them as preferred in sandwitches etc. Even if their sun-exposure is zero (god that is sad). Milk is not the only source and per serving (in this case a glass of milk, as opposed to a 98 gram cut of fish) is an inferior source. If someone is really worried about rickets, there have been chewable vitamins on the market for decades.

I would propose, that if you're going to stand on your soapbox and preen self righteous bullshit as ethics, that they are somewhat sustainable and self consistent.

Except that the hole you try to poke does not make any sense. If I have the option of (if all else is equal) picking a plot of land upon which to live that was converted to human housing decades ago, and selecting a new plot of land, the obvious choice is the former. It is the same reason we reuse plastic containers, recycle raw materials like metals. In this case you are recycling land. Would it be better if the population was no so big? Sure. Would it be awesome if city planners, architects, and those that promulgate The American Dream as conceived of in the 50s did not wax masturbatory about suburbia and instead of building horizontally built vertically? Of course. But everything comes down to your options. And if you have the option (due to economic factors etc) reusing previously cleared land over and over again is better than going out and clearing new land.

Do you fucking get it now? For fuck's sake, Utilitarianism does not actually concern itself with the past at all. Only on current actions. Again, I am not a deontologist. The consequences of the actions I take are what matter. The consequences of what someone did 30 years ago when they bulldozed the plot of land I now occupy have already come to fruition, the only thing I can do is try to eek out as much as I can from that land so that more does not need to be cleared.

So now I can take precautions, just as long as I don't cross your imaginary line in the sand of what constitutes bad precautions. And what the fuck is 'sterilizing your property?' Is there some sort of fad of concrete yards?

No. It is hyperbole (real hyperbole this time Graeme). A grassy yard, while it is green is actually sterile by nature's standards (IE compared to the native community that was there before)

How is it an arbitrary line? There is a small number of potentially harmful species in any given area. Most of these can be discouraged or excluded relatively easily, while still allowing completely benign species to inhabit your yard. If you are interested in mitigating your impact on the wild things that used to live where you now live, then taking these precautions is reasonable. If you are not interested in that, then the ethical system you operate under is obviously not internally consistent utilitarianism and my arguments will not work.

Ah, but deer mice (the major carrier of haunta virus) is apparently ok, just not those damn rats.

I gave a fairly expansive (though I did leave out megafauna like bears and crocodilians, which should just be obvious, and the species that share the same issues as stray house pets like raccoons getting in the trash and/or carrying rabies...) list of potentially harmful groups of taxa and what you can do to avoid them in a subsequent post. I would appreciate it if you at least tried to not burn Mr. Scarecrow at the stake. This is not Oz, and you are not the inquisition.

See, that's called an absolute and it's why I raised the bullshit flag on your preening. Does it hurt if you let some critters who are not dangerous, recolonize in your yard? No. Does that automatically equate to all or 'a good number of native species'? No.

Actually, unless you live in the tropics, yeah it generally does. Depending on where you are, the number will be further reduced by accessibility. But assuming you live in a new development on the outskirts of town, or near a large park of some sort, the number of species that are potentially harmful anywhere is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of species that actually live in the area. If you live in a city, you will have a reduced number of species that tend to be the ones most adapted to living with humans.

And even still, if someone buys a house and yard and is deathly afraid on say...snakes, then yes it hurts them to let non-dangerous snakes recolonize their yard.

Some people have phobias. It happens. Yes it would be a bad thing for them to have snakes in their yard. But the same can be said of people that are afraid of birds, or moths, crossing the street, the dark etc. Phobias are outliers and require a separate discussion.



Cats do that too, however some people are allergic to cats as well.

You seem to want to play some sort of red herring in that your position is better than mine. However, I don't have a position except that yours is full of holes.

Again, predicated on an individual decision. I am not a deontologist. If you want to argue like Kant and ask questions such as "what if everyone did it?" then that is fine, and there would be problems to deal with. As it stands now, an individual trying to eat red meat more ethically could stand to do a bit of hunting. I have already admitted that everyone doing it is undesirable.

Your dodging the question asshole. Your suggestions were propagated by someone asking how to go about it ethically. Your solution isn't ethical in any sane system since expanded out to any reasonable volume for a community and/or culture; you're looking at exactly the same fucking then with another animal as you're looking at with cows. You're passing the buck, to salve your ego and guilt. Very short term thinking but bully for you.

No. But we do not at present live in a world where that state of affairs exists. In other words, you are citing a fantasy world in order to argue the point. The situation can easily be solved as it is now. Regulating the hunt. More people already apply for hunting tags now than the state is willing to give them. Provided the rules are enforced this looks like a workable solution. At least for some parts of the population, and, if we want to argue like Kant (which you seem to like doing) when everyone reduces their meat consumption to sane levels.

Ah, so now we're at the crux of the problem. No it's not ethical, thank you for your concession. So everything else is your blubbering to cover up that fact that you were wrong.

To get your daily intake of vitamin D you dont exactly need to eat a shit-ton of any of those things. Small amounts of cheese, or some sort of animal liver will work just fine. Not (apparently) .2 kg of cheese a week, and on average (US anyway) ~.4-.5 kg of meat a day. You can do it with .35 ounces of salmon, or a bit of cod oil. Or if you live in the right area, 5-30 minutes of sunlight twice a week, according to the NIH.

Hello? Scale, is that you?

If it is unethical to drink so much milk, to the point we need to shift our main source of vitamin D to something else, then that something else would have to be produced in such a quantity to the level that milk is now. Hence, if you pin your hopes on fish, your going to have to ramp up fish farming to a higher level. Same fucking problem as with the venison and you're still passing the buck and ignoring the problem.

I never once said cut any of these things out of your diet completely jackass. Only reduce them. This implicit False Dichotomy thing you have going on is getting on my nerves.

What a bunch of Deer shit, the false dichotomy is yours. I'm pointing out that your 'ethical way to eat and live' is seriously flawed and the best you can do is try to pass the buck on the issue. You picked an easy, short term answer that doesn't work out the further you take it and it is obvious. Too bad if that pisses you off.

What would you propose then moron? Ever expanding housing developments? Lets take a look at your options.

I would propose, that if you're going to stand on your soapbox and preen self righteous bullshit as ethics, that they are somewhat sustainable and self consistent.

Right now your logic sounds a lot like
"Using data from unethically performed human medical research from 60 years ago is no less unethical than if i were to force people into a clinical trial now. All using that data is is passing the buck, so why not strap down a few hundred brown people?" The argument is exactly the same.

lol, I'm not advocating anything asshole, except that if you're going to submit an ethical system, it fucking makes sense.

Ok. And you think a grassy lawn is going to keep them out? Rodents tend to exist fairly easily alongside humans, even deer mice. If you have issues with them, take precautions. That is fine. But keeping a few specific species out is hardly the same as sterilizing your property.

So now I can take precautions, just as long as I don't cross your imaginary line in the sand of what constitutes bad precautions. And what the fuck is 'sterilizing your property?' Is there some sort of fad of concrete yards?

Again, this False Dichotomy you like so much.

You keep using that word. I do-not think-a it means what you think-a it means.

Again, taking precautions against disease carriers is one thing. Freaking out when you see something alive is another. I am not saying you need to make your home a haven for West-Nile carrying mosquitoes or plague rats.

Ah, but deer mice (the major carrier of haunta virus) is apparently ok, just not those damn rats.

The argument is one of marginal utility. Does it hurt you to allow a good number of native species to recolonize your yard after you have built your house? No.

See, that's called an absolute and it's why I raised the bullshit flag on your preening. Does it hurt if you let some critters who are not dangerous, recolonize in your yard? No. Does that automatically equate to all or 'a good number of native species'? No.

And even still, if someone buys a house and yard and is deathly afraid on say...snakes, then yes it hurts them to let non-dangerous snakes recolonize their yard.

In fact many of these organisms are beneficial (Nothing like a bull snake to take out that deer mouse nest...) So the utility you (potentially) lose is low. The gain in terms of the habitat you provide for the non-harmful species that come to call your hard home, is potentially substantial.

Cats do that too, however some people are allergic to cats as well.

You seem to want to play some sort of red herring in that your position is better than mine. However, I don't have a position except that yours is full of holes.

Yes, some are allergic to cats.

Thank you for clarifying.

[Darth Wong]

The argument is predicated on the idea that for an individual trying to eat more ethically, going hunting once a year and bagging an elk or moose is better than eating cow.

And if everyone did it, you'd still have the problems you have now, even worse if everyone was up in the hills getting their venison for the McDeer burgers.

That depends on how difficult it is. Part of the reason we overeat in society is that we've made it so absurdly easy to do so, and industrialized farming is a large part of that equation. Hypothetically speaking, if meat was suddenly far more expensive for some reason, this would eventually effect a drastic change in our eating habits. Our diet would probably resemble the latest food intake recommendations far more closely than it does now.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow... that is one massive formatting error in my prior post. Not to self: In future, pick a method of replicating your opponent's posts, instead of playing by ear. Write it down and stick to it.

That depends on how difficult it is. Part of the reason we overeat in society is that we've made it so absurdly easy to do so, and industrialized farming is a large part of that equation. Hypothetically speaking, if meat was suddenly far more expensive for some reason, this would eventually effect a drastic change in our eating habits. Our diet would probably resemble the latest food intake recommendations far more closely than it does now.

There are several ways this could be done. Massive excise taxes I think are my favorite method.

[Knife]

er..your quotes are all messed up. I'll check back later to see if it's cleaned up but I"m having trouble figuring out what's what in that. Soooo, I'll reply later.

[Alyrium Denryle]

er..your quotes are all messed up. I'll check back later to see if it's cleaned up but I"m having trouble figuring out what's what in that. Soooo, I'll reply later.

Yeah I just noticed that, i didnt catch it before the edit limit lapsed. I apologize. If you want, I can PM you with what is... correct.

[Knife]

er..your quotes are all messed up. I'll check back later to see if it's cleaned up but I"m having trouble figuring out what's what in that. Soooo, I'll reply later.

Yeah I just noticed that, i didnt catch it before the edit limit lapsed. I apologize. If you want, I can PM you with what is... correct.

No worries, edit it if you want or call a friendly mod. I'll just read it later, it is a board after all and not a chat.

[Knife]

That depends on how difficult it is. Part of the reason we overeat in society is that we've made it so absurdly easy to do so, and industrialized farming is a large part of that equation. Hypothetically speaking, if meat was suddenly far more expensive for some reason, this would eventually effect a drastic change in our eating habits. Our diet would probably resemble the latest food intake recommendations far more closely than it does now.

True, but I think that's more of a distribution problem rather than a specific animal or plant we choose to eat. If there was only one walmart every hundred square miles instead of one every square mile, I think the over buying and over consuming would go down quite a bit.

[Erik von Nein]

Just so people know, I wasn't ducking the point. I was just away for a while. My figure on vitamin D synthesis from sunlight was taken from my nutrition book/class a few years back. If I was in error, I apologize. Though, the point still stands; the amount of dairy intake most westerners consume is not necessary to support your vitamin D intake.

[Darth Wong]

Just so people know, I wasn't ducking the point. I was just away for a while. My figure on vitamin D synthesis from sunlight was taken from my nutrition book/class a few years back. If I was in error, I apologize. Though, the point still stands; the amount of dairy intake most westerners consume is not necessary to support your vitamin D intake.

Indeed, our current high dietary consumption of dairy products is probably due to the fact that the organizations in charge of promoting public health and diet standards for decades were merged with the meat and dairy marketing boards, thus creating a huge conflict of interest.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Most are harmless, and the ones that are not are rendered harmless with education.

Where do you live? Have you ever actually lived in a place where dangerous animals are actually a concern?

the Gila Monster if you dont put your hand in its mouth (yes, that is pretty much what you have to do get bitten by those)

I've worked with Gila Monsters. You'd be surprised how aggressive they can be.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ghetto edit: I just realized I accidentally skipped a page where my first question in that last post was already raised and addressed, so strike it.

[Ryan Thunder]

Just so people know, I wasn't ducking the point. I was just away for a while. My figure on vitamin D synthesis from sunlight was taken from my nutrition book/class a few years back. If I was in error, I apologize. Though, the point still stands; the amount of dairy intake most westerners consume is not necessary to support your vitamin D intake.

Indeed, our current high dietary consumption of dairy products is probably due to the fact that the organizations in charge of promoting public health and diet standards for decades were merged with the meat and dairy marketing boards, thus creating a huge conflict of interest.

You know, I really don't want to become a cynical little shit, but things like this make it unreasonably hard for me...

[fgalkin]

*reads Peta's Website*

*falls to the floor laughing*

As someone who actually studied PR, allow me to assure you that PR DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyrium Denryle]

Where do you live? Have you ever actually lived in a place where dangerous animals are actually a concern?

I have never lived in a place where they are not. Age 0-10. Alaskan boonies. If it isn't bear, its moose.

10-22. Arizona. Oh look, rattlesnakes, among other things. I believe the distribution is something along the lines of 80% of bites are the direct result of terminal (well unfortunately not with modern medicine usually) stupidity. In any case, the prevalence of bites/attacks for most dangerous animals in North America is low enough that so long as you are not an idiot you should be fine. The exceptions to this are things like disease carriers, and most of those can be avoided or taken care of relatively easily (most mosquitoes never fly more than a few meters from where they hatched. Get rid of that pile of used tires..) You have more to worry about from your neighbor's dog most of the time (4.5 million dog bites in the US per year...)

Now I live in Texas, fewer rattlesnake species, but now I have both US species of Agkistrodon.

I've worked with Gila Monsters. You'd be surprised how aggressive they can be.

Aggressive yes, but they dont win speed or agility contests. Even if they somehow manage to tag you, it wont kill you unless you have some sort of blood clotting disorder, are already ill, tiny, or ancient.