This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm of opinion the edits made these past few days are strongly NPOV and should be reverted. Examples of what look clearly like NPOV text to me (these are direct quotes): ( talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Similarly I still think a list of vegans who may be vegan for reason other than ethics has no reason to be on this page. It is simply not relevant. I'm not reverting the edits at once, but I'm seeking some opinions on this. Banedon ( talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've thoroughly edited the article. I took out what I felt was some of the most non-neutral text, as well as removed some redundant material (for example the idea that humans do not have to eat meat, and therefore meat-eating is wrong, was repeated quite a bit). I removed the list of vegetarians since it's not a list of ethical vegetarians. I also reorganized the article to put all the criticisms and responses into the same section - may not be a good idea, since some of the criticisms and responses really can go into the relevant sections, but there are also criticisms that don't fit in anywhere else (such as with nonchordates) so I just put them all together (WP:BOLD). I did not check for OR - if someone else would do that that would be great. Banedon ( talk) 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The other paragraph, about plant sentience, I removed under WP: Original Research. Banedon ( talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed some text from the section on oysters. The ILAR reference didn't say anything about oysters having nociceptive systems; it discussed clams, mussels and scallops but not oysters. The other reference, to action by the EU, does not apply to oysters either since oysters aren't cephalopods. I haven't checked the other references yet; intending to do so but no time right now. Banedon ( talk) 09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone removed the image of the cow about to be slaughtered (again) and I just put it back. If you'd like to discuss it let's do so here. It's not a shock image, it's an image of a technique parts of this article actually describe as humane. An example of a real shock image would be the picture of what happens a few seconds later. -- Calibas ( talk) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
--The current front (first) picture also may have shock value and nothing added but. deleted. [Raam) 18:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.57.39 ( talk)
"Humane"? What a joke. So its ok to kill animals as long as its done in a humane manner? How about waking up and not killing animals in the first place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 June 2012
I would argue it is also ethical to kill people so long as it is in a humane manner. But that is beside my main point, the picture of the Holstein cattle reads that it is a common cow eaten for meat which is not true. Holstien beef is very tough and mostly unsuitable for consumption. Holsteins are the largest producers of milk of any cow used in commercial production. I feel the picture should be changed to an Angus beef steer, which is the most commonly eaten cow in the United States and much of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.223.158 ( talk) 18:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the text that read as questions, such as "Meat: Right or Wrong?" and "Does this cow have consicnous?" Because it doesn't support neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 September, 2009
Source article— DrYouMe (Talk?) 01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone copy & pasted the bulk of one of my articles here. I removed it for so many reasons: (1) WP is not a forum. (2) My article has nothing to do with the WP article. (Mine is about whether eating meat is *natural*, WP's is about whether it is *ethical*. I object to my irrelevant article being used as evidence for a completely different subject.) (3) Discussion in WP-Talk pages should be made by the editors, not from huge text dumps from other sources. (4) Enough of the article was copy & pasted to easily constitute copyright violation.
MichaelBluejay (
talk)
00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Excellent essay. I love what you said about psychology. I know a lot about human psychology, and it's so true. So many meat eaters will say "Animals eat other animals", but most of the ones they eat don't, at least not naturally. In fact, there was a restaurant that sold "lion burgers" that had to close because too many people protested, and I actually saw a comment on a YouTube video about this saying that it is hypocritical for humans to eat omnivores (even though chickens and turkeys eat worms), and I saw a comment on an article about this saying that the owner of the restaurant should be fed to the lions.
I also read some guy say that some societies take it too far and eat cats and dogs. I don't see why that is going too far.
But this all pretty much proves that they're not interested in the truth. They were raised eating these animals, they like the way they taste, and they want to be able to continue enjoying the taste. Everything else is just an excuse.-- 71.72.151.150 ( talk) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, quite a convincing point Pgordon2. A well researched and well written article with Scientific facts yet 'it is obviously ALL wrong'. Excellent counter argument. Your point on Neanderthals also makes no sense. They were carnivores and contributed to our DNA so we must be carnivores as well? First of all actually read the article and you will the evidence that the earliest ancestors of homo sapiens were vegetarian and even in those hunter-gatherer groups, plants were still a dominant part of the diet. There is so many points in that article that strongly support the powerful foothold of vegetarianism in human evolution its mind boggling anyone with the slightest intellect would actually challenge it (and in such a weak way as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is another point supporting human omnivory: chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, obtain 5-10% of their calories from animal prey. In fact, they make spears by stripping leaves from twigs and use those spears to kill bush-babies (a small species of monkey), which they then eat. The human and chimpanzee lineages diverged, initially, 6-7 million years ago, then according to the most recent theory there was some further inbreeding between the lineages approximately 4.5 million years ago, after which the final divergence occured. Given how close chimpanzees are to us genetically and the observed fact of their omnivovry, given neanderthal near-carnivory, and given the omnivory of homo sapien hunter-gatherer societies, I think it's clear that humans are omnivores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have significant problems with all arguments here - both claims for "humans as herbivores" and "humans as omnivores". The problem is that writers are employing principles of evolutionary medicine that are now accepted as outdated. The extensive 20+ year work of Dr. Randolph Nesse and colleagues show that rather than "Humans" being herbivores, omnivores, or carnivores - Individuals - based on complex heritable adaptation - combined with more proximate epi-genetic factors dictate what is optimum for an individual. So - if the implication is that this touches upon ethics because it's ethical to be healthy - the we should attempt to come together and frame the issue in terms of personalised nutrition - not broad sweeping generalities about evolutionary adaptation on a species level. MythicMeats ( talk) 08:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Mycobovine
Let's show some sense here. As can easily be seen from e.g. the human page here on Wikipedia, there are plenty of sources out there that claim humans are omnivores (just go to that page, ctrl + f 'omni', click on sources ... or use Google). There are so many sources that classify humans as omnivores that I think it's safe to conclude that that is the mainstream opinion. This article is therefore a minority argument that humans are herbivores that, perhaps coincidentally, reads like a pseudoscientific article with plenty of bombastic words meant to sound impressive. The article appeals directly to the reader to come to his own conclusions instead of trying to convince other scientists in scientific literature, and is written by someone without expertise in the field to boot (plus the source page link is broken, plus the fact that it's written by a M.D = medical doctor, which are not specially trained in biology). For these reasons and more I do not trust it. I strongly oppose any mention of the 'naturalness' of humans being herbivores unless academic and peer-reviewed publications for this can be found. Banedon ( talk) 01:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is straight up propaganda on arguments using quote mining and misrepresenting sources. I have listed all the source and arguments below so you can decide yourself.
The chart is invalid and simply wrong. First we do not know the sample animals he used for each generalization. Second the pH in the stomach is 1.3-3.5 (see Gastric acid) also saliva also has digestive enzymes to digest fat ( salivary lipase) besides that saliva is not a good measurement since it can vary between different taxonomic groups. Also there is NOTHING mentioning the rumen or fermentation vats in herbivores which they use to generate vitamin B12. Humans do not have rumens so they are omnivores also herbivores cannot digest meat. For other jaw and intestine features check this vegetarian site ( http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm link)
Although none of these both vegetarian articles are NOT peer reviewed sources the facts are humans do not have rumens and humans can digest meats along with plants so they are omnivores. Here is another fine example of the quote mining
If you check the source it will quote a paper from PNAS titled "Starch grains on human teeth reveal early broad crop diet in northern Peru" here is the link from PNAS. This only addresses early individuals in the Zana Valley of Peru NOT worldwide. It is also not 4 million years ago if you look at the first paragraph the Carbon 14 dating shows that the time period was 11,200 to 6000 calendar years. The discussion of the article shows that the source said "Starch grain data from dental remains can inform a number of important issues concerning early human diets and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture." Here is a manipulation of statistics that was used:
If you look at the source abstract the sample size is very low (133) and restrictive (only in San Diego County) The statistics list "14% having using alcohol or other sedatives and 55% having a documented neurological deficit or anatomic difficulty with swallowing." It only mention that the "most common specified food objects" was meat. Yet the author state it the most common cause is meat which is not true as quoted in the above statistic. The abstract also states "Most victims who choked to death had an underlying neurological deficit" In the Vitamin B12 section it list:
B12 as stated before is produced by bacteria in the rumen. It can be obtained through meat or fermented foods such as kombucha and algae. By the author's logic these are also unclean and unsanitize. The author also uses tactics to disgust the audience where he states that B12 is also obtained through termites and unsanitized water (actually algae rich see article) This is ironic since he also recommends supplements:
Because under US law 21 CFR § 184.1945 Avitamin B12 supplements are produced Streptomyces griseus, a dirt bacteria. It is also not known what is used as the hardening agent for the supplements generally come in liquid or powder form. The source article has barely any opposing sources and uses vegan advocating sources to support itself. The real question we should be asking is if this is for an ethical reason why would data be manipulated? Why can't it be discussed scientifically and logically using peer review sources? To sum it up this article uses:
- Cs california ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
References
I think that it is overemphasised in the article that being on a vegetarian diet poses no health issues and that eating meat is not necessary for our health. As some have pointed out here, this is a blatant lie that is not backed by scientific evidence and is basically propaganda. In fact, many people, such as myself, cannot survive on a vegetarian diet due to health issues such as inflamatory bowel diseases. For such people being on a vegetarian diet is nothing more than a rapid way to find yourself on the operating table. The second sentense in the article: "The fundamental ethical objection to meat eating is that for most people living in the developed world it is not necessary for their survival or health; hence, it is concluded, slaying animals just because people like the taste of meat is wrong and morally unjustifiable." although referenced, is false. For many people, the consumption of animal products may not be necessary but that is not a general claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.129.190 ( talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The American Dietetic Association, along with most nutritionists, holds that eating meat is not necessary for most Westerners' survival. However, this claim has been challenged by[whatever source you can come up with which has a chance of sounding reliable while disagreeing with the ADA]. FourViolas ( talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone care to justify the inclusion of this section? It currently
The sole peer-reviewed source it cites is Saja 2013, a primary source, and given the amount of literature on this I don't think that's nearly WP:WEIGHTy enough to support the inclusion of this much material not covered by the article title. Perhaps it would be DUE to include a sentence mentioning that many vegans, and at least one moral philosopher, consider other animal products in the same framework as they do meat; however, at the moment the size and content of this section seem to be UNDUE and serving only to advance vegan ideology. FourViolas ( talk) 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is far from neutral when it is stating as fact that eating meat is morally and ethically objectionable and unjustifiable. Billions of people would disagree, but that isn't what we're here for. If you're here to help build an encyclopedia, please at least make an attempt to adhere to some modicum of WP:NPOV. If you're not, then that is going to be a problem. Laval ( talk) 23:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@ JaneHarper: please explain why WP:V is not relevant here? Banedon ( talk) 03:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In several sections there are paragraphs of text that are indented. Are these quotes? If they are, shouldn't they be in quotes? DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ethics of eating meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken referring to non-human animals by using 'animals' isn't proper scientific language. This issue is addressed in the 'Animal' article on Wikipedia ( /info/en/?search=Animal#Etymology). My changes were reversed and I would like to discuss this topic further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrownLies ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a perennial issue which needs a guideline. See, for example, here. I have proposed WikiProject Animals develop a guideline. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is missing a section outlining arguments in favour of meat eating, it is at present a showcase of arguments against eating meat only. There is a vast philosophical literature on both sides of the argument, e.g. https://www.bobfischer.net/, making this article fairly poor as it doesn't present a complete picture of the "debate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boddika ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The ethical arguments against meat and animal cruelties exist since the ancient times. It includes those by the ancient Indian, Greek, and Chinese philosophers. However, the article appears to discuss only about the modern discussions. The former aspect needs to be covered as well. Bhagya sri113 ( talk) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Very much agree. This is extremely one-sided, to the point that it seems biased toward Western philosophies and modern sentiments. It reads like the conversation only started in the 1950s. I’ll try and find more sources so I can flesh out the “overview” that begins with Singer in the coming days/weeks/whenever. If anyone has links, throw them at me. Dax Kirk ( talk) 05:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I propose that either (a) this article's name be changed to 'ethics of food selection' or (b) a larger 'main article' be developed on the topic 'ethics of food selection'. MaynardClark ( talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a "see also" but I think it's probably important enough to merit its own mention? Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 21:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I made significant revisions to this article over the last two days to try and address some of the many longstanding issues mentioned by other editors -- and to and address some of the problems that surfaced during the peer review.
First, the intro was poorly written and had a number of grammatical issues. The intro was also very one-sided. The "ethics of meat eating" is a conversation with two sides, as demonstrated through the many citations included in this article. Previously, the intro only had one sentence (and no citations) about people who support meat consumption. I added citations to reliable sources that support meat consumption in an attempt to remove this bias.
Second, the second heading was previously titled "Overview of the argument against meat eating." However, this section also included arguments and citations that supported meat consumption. This makes the heading very confusing. Addittionally, the "ethics of meat eating" is a conversation with two sides. Having a heading for arguments against meat consumption, and no heading for arguments promoting meat consumption, makes the article biased. In an attempt to improve accuracy and remove bias, I changed this heading to "Overview of arguments for and against meat eating."
Third, the article only included arguments from modern philosophers, theologians, and scientists. This conversation has been ongoing for millennia, as many citations in this article note. I added citations to reliable sources that discuss arguments made by Plato, Pythagoras, and other ancient people regarding the ethics of meat consumption.
Fourth, the existence of the "criticism and responses" section was confusing. Throughout the entire article (in literally every heading), arguments for and against meat consumption were referenced. So it made sense to integrate the things mentioned in "criticism and responses" into the appropriate section (i.e. environmental arguments, animal consciousness arguments, etc.) and delete the "criticism and responses" heading.
I believe that's all. If it looks like I deleted a lot in my revisions, I didn't. I just moved stuff around. Happy to discuss any of the above here. Dax Kirk ( talk) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Ethics of meat consumption" sounds more encyclopedic than the current title.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 22:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I'm of opinion the edits made these past few days are strongly NPOV and should be reverted. Examples of what look clearly like NPOV text to me (these are direct quotes): ( talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Similarly I still think a list of vegans who may be vegan for reason other than ethics has no reason to be on this page. It is simply not relevant. I'm not reverting the edits at once, but I'm seeking some opinions on this. Banedon ( talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I've thoroughly edited the article. I took out what I felt was some of the most non-neutral text, as well as removed some redundant material (for example the idea that humans do not have to eat meat, and therefore meat-eating is wrong, was repeated quite a bit). I removed the list of vegetarians since it's not a list of ethical vegetarians. I also reorganized the article to put all the criticisms and responses into the same section - may not be a good idea, since some of the criticisms and responses really can go into the relevant sections, but there are also criticisms that don't fit in anywhere else (such as with nonchordates) so I just put them all together (WP:BOLD). I did not check for OR - if someone else would do that that would be great. Banedon ( talk) 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The other paragraph, about plant sentience, I removed under WP: Original Research. Banedon ( talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed some text from the section on oysters. The ILAR reference didn't say anything about oysters having nociceptive systems; it discussed clams, mussels and scallops but not oysters. The other reference, to action by the EU, does not apply to oysters either since oysters aren't cephalopods. I haven't checked the other references yet; intending to do so but no time right now. Banedon ( talk) 09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Someone removed the image of the cow about to be slaughtered (again) and I just put it back. If you'd like to discuss it let's do so here. It's not a shock image, it's an image of a technique parts of this article actually describe as humane. An example of a real shock image would be the picture of what happens a few seconds later. -- Calibas ( talk) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
--The current front (first) picture also may have shock value and nothing added but. deleted. [Raam) 18:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.57.39 ( talk)
"Humane"? What a joke. So its ok to kill animals as long as its done in a humane manner? How about waking up and not killing animals in the first place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 June 2012
I would argue it is also ethical to kill people so long as it is in a humane manner. But that is beside my main point, the picture of the Holstein cattle reads that it is a common cow eaten for meat which is not true. Holstien beef is very tough and mostly unsuitable for consumption. Holsteins are the largest producers of milk of any cow used in commercial production. I feel the picture should be changed to an Angus beef steer, which is the most commonly eaten cow in the United States and much of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.223.158 ( talk) 18:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the text that read as questions, such as "Meat: Right or Wrong?" and "Does this cow have consicnous?" Because it doesn't support neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 September, 2009
Source article— DrYouMe (Talk?) 01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone copy & pasted the bulk of one of my articles here. I removed it for so many reasons: (1) WP is not a forum. (2) My article has nothing to do with the WP article. (Mine is about whether eating meat is *natural*, WP's is about whether it is *ethical*. I object to my irrelevant article being used as evidence for a completely different subject.) (3) Discussion in WP-Talk pages should be made by the editors, not from huge text dumps from other sources. (4) Enough of the article was copy & pasted to easily constitute copyright violation.
MichaelBluejay (
talk)
00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Excellent essay. I love what you said about psychology. I know a lot about human psychology, and it's so true. So many meat eaters will say "Animals eat other animals", but most of the ones they eat don't, at least not naturally. In fact, there was a restaurant that sold "lion burgers" that had to close because too many people protested, and I actually saw a comment on a YouTube video about this saying that it is hypocritical for humans to eat omnivores (even though chickens and turkeys eat worms), and I saw a comment on an article about this saying that the owner of the restaurant should be fed to the lions.
I also read some guy say that some societies take it too far and eat cats and dogs. I don't see why that is going too far.
But this all pretty much proves that they're not interested in the truth. They were raised eating these animals, they like the way they taste, and they want to be able to continue enjoying the taste. Everything else is just an excuse.-- 71.72.151.150 ( talk) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, quite a convincing point Pgordon2. A well researched and well written article with Scientific facts yet 'it is obviously ALL wrong'. Excellent counter argument. Your point on Neanderthals also makes no sense. They were carnivores and contributed to our DNA so we must be carnivores as well? First of all actually read the article and you will the evidence that the earliest ancestors of homo sapiens were vegetarian and even in those hunter-gatherer groups, plants were still a dominant part of the diet. There is so many points in that article that strongly support the powerful foothold of vegetarianism in human evolution its mind boggling anyone with the slightest intellect would actually challenge it (and in such a weak way as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical ( talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is another point supporting human omnivory: chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, obtain 5-10% of their calories from animal prey. In fact, they make spears by stripping leaves from twigs and use those spears to kill bush-babies (a small species of monkey), which they then eat. The human and chimpanzee lineages diverged, initially, 6-7 million years ago, then according to the most recent theory there was some further inbreeding between the lineages approximately 4.5 million years ago, after which the final divergence occured. Given how close chimpanzees are to us genetically and the observed fact of their omnivovry, given neanderthal near-carnivory, and given the omnivory of homo sapien hunter-gatherer societies, I think it's clear that humans are omnivores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 ( talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have significant problems with all arguments here - both claims for "humans as herbivores" and "humans as omnivores". The problem is that writers are employing principles of evolutionary medicine that are now accepted as outdated. The extensive 20+ year work of Dr. Randolph Nesse and colleagues show that rather than "Humans" being herbivores, omnivores, or carnivores - Individuals - based on complex heritable adaptation - combined with more proximate epi-genetic factors dictate what is optimum for an individual. So - if the implication is that this touches upon ethics because it's ethical to be healthy - the we should attempt to come together and frame the issue in terms of personalised nutrition - not broad sweeping generalities about evolutionary adaptation on a species level. MythicMeats ( talk) 08:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Mycobovine
Let's show some sense here. As can easily be seen from e.g. the human page here on Wikipedia, there are plenty of sources out there that claim humans are omnivores (just go to that page, ctrl + f 'omni', click on sources ... or use Google). There are so many sources that classify humans as omnivores that I think it's safe to conclude that that is the mainstream opinion. This article is therefore a minority argument that humans are herbivores that, perhaps coincidentally, reads like a pseudoscientific article with plenty of bombastic words meant to sound impressive. The article appeals directly to the reader to come to his own conclusions instead of trying to convince other scientists in scientific literature, and is written by someone without expertise in the field to boot (plus the source page link is broken, plus the fact that it's written by a M.D = medical doctor, which are not specially trained in biology). For these reasons and more I do not trust it. I strongly oppose any mention of the 'naturalness' of humans being herbivores unless academic and peer-reviewed publications for this can be found. Banedon ( talk) 01:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is straight up propaganda on arguments using quote mining and misrepresenting sources. I have listed all the source and arguments below so you can decide yourself.
The chart is invalid and simply wrong. First we do not know the sample animals he used for each generalization. Second the pH in the stomach is 1.3-3.5 (see Gastric acid) also saliva also has digestive enzymes to digest fat ( salivary lipase) besides that saliva is not a good measurement since it can vary between different taxonomic groups. Also there is NOTHING mentioning the rumen or fermentation vats in herbivores which they use to generate vitamin B12. Humans do not have rumens so they are omnivores also herbivores cannot digest meat. For other jaw and intestine features check this vegetarian site ( http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm link)
Although none of these both vegetarian articles are NOT peer reviewed sources the facts are humans do not have rumens and humans can digest meats along with plants so they are omnivores. Here is another fine example of the quote mining
If you check the source it will quote a paper from PNAS titled "Starch grains on human teeth reveal early broad crop diet in northern Peru" here is the link from PNAS. This only addresses early individuals in the Zana Valley of Peru NOT worldwide. It is also not 4 million years ago if you look at the first paragraph the Carbon 14 dating shows that the time period was 11,200 to 6000 calendar years. The discussion of the article shows that the source said "Starch grain data from dental remains can inform a number of important issues concerning early human diets and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture." Here is a manipulation of statistics that was used:
If you look at the source abstract the sample size is very low (133) and restrictive (only in San Diego County) The statistics list "14% having using alcohol or other sedatives and 55% having a documented neurological deficit or anatomic difficulty with swallowing." It only mention that the "most common specified food objects" was meat. Yet the author state it the most common cause is meat which is not true as quoted in the above statistic. The abstract also states "Most victims who choked to death had an underlying neurological deficit" In the Vitamin B12 section it list:
B12 as stated before is produced by bacteria in the rumen. It can be obtained through meat or fermented foods such as kombucha and algae. By the author's logic these are also unclean and unsanitize. The author also uses tactics to disgust the audience where he states that B12 is also obtained through termites and unsanitized water (actually algae rich see article) This is ironic since he also recommends supplements:
Because under US law 21 CFR § 184.1945 Avitamin B12 supplements are produced Streptomyces griseus, a dirt bacteria. It is also not known what is used as the hardening agent for the supplements generally come in liquid or powder form. The source article has barely any opposing sources and uses vegan advocating sources to support itself. The real question we should be asking is if this is for an ethical reason why would data be manipulated? Why can't it be discussed scientifically and logically using peer review sources? To sum it up this article uses:
- Cs california ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
References
I think that it is overemphasised in the article that being on a vegetarian diet poses no health issues and that eating meat is not necessary for our health. As some have pointed out here, this is a blatant lie that is not backed by scientific evidence and is basically propaganda. In fact, many people, such as myself, cannot survive on a vegetarian diet due to health issues such as inflamatory bowel diseases. For such people being on a vegetarian diet is nothing more than a rapid way to find yourself on the operating table. The second sentense in the article: "The fundamental ethical objection to meat eating is that for most people living in the developed world it is not necessary for their survival or health; hence, it is concluded, slaying animals just because people like the taste of meat is wrong and morally unjustifiable." although referenced, is false. For many people, the consumption of animal products may not be necessary but that is not a general claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.129.190 ( talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The American Dietetic Association, along with most nutritionists, holds that eating meat is not necessary for most Westerners' survival. However, this claim has been challenged by[whatever source you can come up with which has a chance of sounding reliable while disagreeing with the ADA]. FourViolas ( talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone care to justify the inclusion of this section? It currently
The sole peer-reviewed source it cites is Saja 2013, a primary source, and given the amount of literature on this I don't think that's nearly WP:WEIGHTy enough to support the inclusion of this much material not covered by the article title. Perhaps it would be DUE to include a sentence mentioning that many vegans, and at least one moral philosopher, consider other animal products in the same framework as they do meat; however, at the moment the size and content of this section seem to be UNDUE and serving only to advance vegan ideology. FourViolas ( talk) 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
This article is far from neutral when it is stating as fact that eating meat is morally and ethically objectionable and unjustifiable. Billions of people would disagree, but that isn't what we're here for. If you're here to help build an encyclopedia, please at least make an attempt to adhere to some modicum of WP:NPOV. If you're not, then that is going to be a problem. Laval ( talk) 23:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@ JaneHarper: please explain why WP:V is not relevant here? Banedon ( talk) 03:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In several sections there are paragraphs of text that are indented. Are these quotes? If they are, shouldn't they be in quotes? DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ethics of eating meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken referring to non-human animals by using 'animals' isn't proper scientific language. This issue is addressed in the 'Animal' article on Wikipedia ( /info/en/?search=Animal#Etymology). My changes were reversed and I would like to discuss this topic further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrownLies ( talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a perennial issue which needs a guideline. See, for example, here. I have proposed WikiProject Animals develop a guideline. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is missing a section outlining arguments in favour of meat eating, it is at present a showcase of arguments against eating meat only. There is a vast philosophical literature on both sides of the argument, e.g. https://www.bobfischer.net/, making this article fairly poor as it doesn't present a complete picture of the "debate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boddika ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The ethical arguments against meat and animal cruelties exist since the ancient times. It includes those by the ancient Indian, Greek, and Chinese philosophers. However, the article appears to discuss only about the modern discussions. The former aspect needs to be covered as well. Bhagya sri113 ( talk) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Very much agree. This is extremely one-sided, to the point that it seems biased toward Western philosophies and modern sentiments. It reads like the conversation only started in the 1950s. I’ll try and find more sources so I can flesh out the “overview” that begins with Singer in the coming days/weeks/whenever. If anyone has links, throw them at me. Dax Kirk ( talk) 05:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I propose that either (a) this article's name be changed to 'ethics of food selection' or (b) a larger 'main article' be developed on the topic 'ethics of food selection'. MaynardClark ( talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a "see also" but I think it's probably important enough to merit its own mention? Likeanechointheforest ( talk) 21:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I made significant revisions to this article over the last two days to try and address some of the many longstanding issues mentioned by other editors -- and to and address some of the problems that surfaced during the peer review.
First, the intro was poorly written and had a number of grammatical issues. The intro was also very one-sided. The "ethics of meat eating" is a conversation with two sides, as demonstrated through the many citations included in this article. Previously, the intro only had one sentence (and no citations) about people who support meat consumption. I added citations to reliable sources that support meat consumption in an attempt to remove this bias.
Second, the second heading was previously titled "Overview of the argument against meat eating." However, this section also included arguments and citations that supported meat consumption. This makes the heading very confusing. Addittionally, the "ethics of meat eating" is a conversation with two sides. Having a heading for arguments against meat consumption, and no heading for arguments promoting meat consumption, makes the article biased. In an attempt to improve accuracy and remove bias, I changed this heading to "Overview of arguments for and against meat eating."
Third, the article only included arguments from modern philosophers, theologians, and scientists. This conversation has been ongoing for millennia, as many citations in this article note. I added citations to reliable sources that discuss arguments made by Plato, Pythagoras, and other ancient people regarding the ethics of meat consumption.
Fourth, the existence of the "criticism and responses" section was confusing. Throughout the entire article (in literally every heading), arguments for and against meat consumption were referenced. So it made sense to integrate the things mentioned in "criticism and responses" into the appropriate section (i.e. environmental arguments, animal consciousness arguments, etc.) and delete the "criticism and responses" heading.
I believe that's all. If it looks like I deleted a lot in my revisions, I didn't. I just moved stuff around. Happy to discuss any of the above here. Dax Kirk ( talk) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Ethics of meat consumption" sounds more encyclopedic than the current title.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 22:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)