Alue42

if something doesn’t have a concept of ethics, that doesn’t make its unethical actions unethical. If it did, teaching ethics would be unnecessary

Have you taken an Ethics class? You don’t learn one set of rules for life and then you are done (not, life would be so easy if that were the case!!). You learn Kantian philosophy, Consequentialism, Deontology, Utilitarianism…just to name a few. You learn how philosophy come in to play and how to recognize the patterns. Knowing these can relate to understanding where someone (or in this discussion, the bear/fox/deer/etc) places it’s moral compass to better understand it’s viewpoint. The best may not understand ethics, but it still has a moral compass that you can tease out.

So the question remains: What power holds these species’ moral compasses? Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Or are you holding your morals up to them?

I truly have never heard that response!

What power holds these species’ moral compasses? For many people it’s their god or their religion (which could be Gaia/earth), for others it’s others around them, for others including me it’s themselves.
Does a bear/fox/deer/etc hold their own moral compass? If so, how do we know what they consider to be moral in order for these actions to be morally questionable? Do they hold themselves to your morals (ie, others comparing themselves to those around them), or are you holding your morals up to them?

So the bears, foxes, deer, egrets, etc are also being unethical and should be damned? Because they absolutely can live without meat but chose to hunt.

I was showing that your statements are incorrect. That hunting is not a necessity because we are omnivores. But it’s not a necessity for the bear either, they are also omnivores.

Therefore, is hunting off the table for us? Both of your statements “eat meat to survive” and “eat x exotic animal” have been proven extreme false hyperboles that don’t relate to the question at hand.

Ok, but what you said tried to toe the line while actually using absolute hyperboles to prove neither point.

Keep in mind we live in a world where it’s normal to go from “we need meat to survive” to “let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.

We actually don’t need meat to survive. While there are species that are indeed obligate carnivores or ones that whose digestive system is more efficient with meat proteins, we are omnivores. It’s even been shown that body builders and athletes can sustain themselves on a vegan diet.

“let’s eat X exotic animal that absolutely doesn’t have to be the one to sustain us”.

While some people get a thrill out of eating the highly illegal species, turning new species into a new food item can be a boon to conservation. Lionfish never used to live in the Florida Keys, then one popped up, then a handful, then all the sudden they were taking over whole reefs and the native species had no where to live. There was no way to get rid of them, they hide under the outcroppings of the reefs, they can’t be caught on a line, no gillnetting, they have to be speared which is NOT easy as government operation or some sort of eradication program. Finally, it caught on how delicious they are and the area started teaching people how to handle the spines and the filet around the venom glands in order to cook them, and it took off like crazy and everyone was in the water to get them! The population hasn’t declined, but it’s somewhat leveled so the local marine species can at least get a toehold again.

And this isn’t the only species with a story like this. So taking on exotic species (plant and animal) in your diet can indeed be a good thing for conservation.

But, the point is I asked if hunting was off the table for us as a species despite it occurring in nature, and if so was it due to our intellect? You responded with hyperboles on both ends that don’t provide an answer.

I just tried looking for you, and the most up to date I could find was for 2017. That’s disappointing, but slightly out of date is better than nothing.

The only reason it hasn’t caught on is because they are very difficult to catch (spear) and even more difficult to prepare (venom glands). They are unbelievably delicious, but even so, I’m not going to trust a chef a don’t know to be sure he didn’t pierce one of those glands while preparing it. I’ll trust myself or one of my friends that I no for 100% certain can do it right. So even though a handful of restaurants were offering it in the Keys and Miami, you’ll really see people catching it themselves and preparing it just to be sure.

He’s my conundrum with that. Other species will not go after animals that are close to death. I’ve worked with a lot of wild animals. The thinking is that if it is dead or close to death they will leave it to the scavengers since they don’t want to risk contracting whatever killed it. Bears, eagles, so many animals are going to hunt healthy fish - bears specifically go after the salmon about to spawn and pass on their genes.

Hunting is part of nature, and not just with fish.

I understand the issue with industrialized/commercial kills, but is hunting also off the table in your train of thought? I mean this as a genuine question, not an attack, I know tone of voice is often lost through text.

Is hunting/fishing off the table for us as the species with higher intellect? We do not have as robust immune systems as the scavengers of nature do, so waiting for things to be in a position near death is worrisome to me. Whereas hunting/fishing (again, not the industrialized practice, but individual) is how conservation of species was born by developing species limits and it’s how some species levels continue to be kept in check (for instance, invasive lion fish in the US South East)

We have also invented ways to do it more sustainably, and even have handy wallet sized Sustainable Seafood Lists for each region of the US to make sure you make sustainable choices when eating at restaurants or purchasing at the market
Seafood Watch Guides

Fish can and do eat you

You are deliberately not answering the question.

“If every person that ate fish was out there…” exactly - they purchase fish caught commercially because either they don’t know how to catch their own fish or they don’t have access to catch their own fish (access either with time, money, or physically). Commercial fishing solves that by precisely doing it “at scale a lot more efficiently” as you pointed out and ships the fish to where people will purchase it.

I didn’t ask “what if everyone went out and did it themselves”

I asked your thoughts on people who DO fish for themselves, or those using traditional fishing practices.

OP didn’t specify commercial fishing. What about traditional fishing practices, or a singular fisher catching for himself/family?

“whoops, there’s too much milk left over, I’ll just add some cereal”

“Oh no, now my milk is finished, but I still have cereal left, I’ll just add some more milk”

“Well now I have extra milk again, time for more cereal”

I see where you’re going…

Where I grew up it was k-2: primary, 3-5: elementary, 6-8: middle, 9-12: high.

Where I moved after college had primary, intermediate, and high; elementary, intermediate, and high; elementary, junior high, and high; all combinations, but I didn’t know the grade levels.

I understand that’s what you wanted to show with that article, but that’s not the information that the article provided. That article did not provide any information about either MDs or DOs being holistic or not. It was about the use of statistics in their respective practices. Which is why I questioned knowledge of the definition.

But damn, I hope I never get you as a nurse. I used to teach in one of the top nursing graduate universities in the country, and your attitude is definitely not what we would aim for. Yes, we encouraged away from the pseudoscience and focused on research based approaches, but damn. Osteopathic is different than allopathic, but neither is exclusive to evidence based, nor is either inclusive to it.

I have to ask: what do you think “holistic” means? You’ve said twice (once in each comment I’ve know replied to) that DOs “think they are more holistic than others”
Do you think it relates to holy?
It doesn’t. It means that’s parts of something are interconnected and can only be considered in reference to the whole of itself.
Which is the key difference between osteopathic and allopathic medicine, so of course they believe they are more holistic.

I’m not sure what you were trying to prove with those links. The first explains that while evidence based medicine uses statistics, it is a specific way of using data to determine clinical care - that it can determine the best route of care for the largest group of people that works most of the time, which is great for most people most of the time…but what about when you fall outside that group (my addition - yes, they could try the second choice when the first doesn’t work or the third next, but that takes time and suffering). Whereas DOs consider the the first choice option as well as the outside options by evaluating everything. Consider the story above of my earache. That’s what the link was describing. I’m not sure what you got from it, or what that has to do with being holistic (though considering outside treatment options that might involve other parts of the body would be considered holistic). The thing is, statistics are great to describe how a population reacts to treatments, not an individual. Appendectomies have a 95% success rate, but that doesn’t mean that you have a 95% chance of surviving one. But evidence based treatments are based on the success rates, not the individual - that’s where the patient-first idea come into play, DOs consider the patient as a whole rather than only the statistics when the statistics don’t line up with the patient.

The second link says that healthcare costs between MDs and DOs are similar. Neither is more expensive, neither is less expensive. I’m not sure what that has to do with being holistic (either the actual definition or whatever you may think it means).

You’re making the claim that what I described previously is pseudoscience because a DO saw that my ankle has turned inward and offered ankle strengthening exercises. Ankle strengthening exercises aren’t pseudoscience, there is data behind it - the idea that it could cause ear pain due to the other issues it causes certainly would not be common, but it is explainable. Pseudoscience is something that uses no explanatory reasoning and avoids peer review. DOs routinely publish their findings.

Thank you, I didn’t realize that homeopathy was not general term - I thought it was a generalized term for alternative medicine that wasn’t eastern medicine, but I was wrong.

Anyway, I do still have some things to clear up for you.

You still seem to think that DOs are spending their 300+ additional hours after the MD learning the pseudoscience, which isn’t the case. Those hours are spent with neurologists, orthopedics, physical therapists, and other fellowships and residencies only provided by the MEDICAL SCHOOL - which would absolutely not allow any pseudoscience within their walls. Yes, they might do very minor manipulation in their practices, but it’s what’s learned through neurologists, physical therapists, or orthopedists, etc. (in addition to their MD residenciea just like the MDs in family practice, OB, surgery, dermatology, oncology, etc). The goal of a DO is to treat a patient as the sum of their parts rather than symptomatically.

Patient-first rather than symptom-first. (DO vs MD)

Osteopathic rather than allopathic. (DO vs MD)

-If I go to an MD with an earache, I’ll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong but walk out with Prednisone to see if it helps. Prednisone does nothing but make me gain water weight.
-If I go to a DO with an earache, I’ll have my ear checked out and maybe find nothing wrong, but he might think since there was nothing obvious that maybe there’s a nerve pinched near the top of my neck so he’ll have me stand to look at my posture and notice that I’m standing awkwardly with my hips not level, checks out my ankles and realizes I’ve started to lean in on one of my ankles and writes an Rx for a custom insole and exercises to strengthen my ankle. The issue with the ankle was causing my hips to lean, which caused my back to curve the other way to compensate, which pinched a nerve in my neck, which caused an earache. Wear the insole while strengthening the ankle, earache goes away.

(This is a true story of something that happened to me, not an example of every experience with a MD or a DO)

There is nothing precluding and MD from also searching for the underlying cause, but allopathic medicine looks to treat symptoms.

Osteopathy is 100% the movement of muscles and bones and not taught in medical school.

Osteopathy /=/ osteopathic

This is incorrect. You are likely confused due to the fact that the names of the fields are similar.

Osteopathy /=/ osteopathic

I’ll discuss the fields as the are in the US, as I am not aware of how they are in other countries.

• Chiropractors go through their own degree programs through their own colleges.
• Osteopaths are homeopathic practitioners (not doctors, and they refer to their customers as clients, they are legally not allowed to refer to them as patients) and are alternative medicine practicioners.
• MDs receive a medical degree and are doctors.
• DOs receive a medical degree (an MD) as well as an additional 300+ hours of osteopathic study through their medical school to receive a second medical degree certification - this is NOT the same as the homeopathic study, this is the study of the bones, joints, nerves, and how they all work together as a whole.