Printable View
ok this has absolutely nothing to do with dreams; besides the fact that a dream of mine is to see a world without animal cruelty.
just go to www.PETA.org and watch some of the videos, its disgusting. like 'meet your meat'.
its truly atrocious. but please, just watch it.
and if willing, join the vegan fight against slaughterhousing and animal-butchering. and donate to the cause if you even care.
Here's my spill on PETA.
Yeah, I'm against slaughterhouses. Cleaning up needs to happen. PETA has shown that they have an OBVIOUS INEPTITUDE at handling public relations and are incapable of successfully convincing government agencies to change their policy.
Flaw #1: PETA takes an extremist position. Extremism almost NEVER wins out. Moderate their position somewhat, and they'll find much greater success. They're trying to jump a twenty foot tall fence in a hurdles race. Just won't work. But if they'd just take things step-by-step, for example, petitioning for cleaner work standards in the meat industries, but not the outright closing of said industries, then they'd be more likely to succeed.
Nobody sane wants to see animals butchered that way. But people DO still want to eat meat. Give them the option to have the best of both worlds, and they'll be infinitely more willing to join.
Flaw #2: PETA advocates wide-spread vegetarianism. For an individual, being vegetarian or vegan is perfectly healthy, though they will most certainly have to watch their diet closely and take quite a few supplements to make up for the lost nutrients not available in diets without meet and dairy. An interesting note is that several (but not all) supplements of those types are derived from animals--making the whole charade rather unconvincing for those who aren't careful in their selection of supplements.
Also, important to note, is that while individuals who are vegetarians may be healthy, they won't exceed expectations often. Without a source of high-protein food (supplements can only do so much), most of their energy is rapidly expelled, and the majority of vegetarians have very little to no endurance.
As for the implementation of wide-spread vegetarianism, it simply WON'T WORK. Humankind is a omnivorous species. We need BOTH aspects of a herbivorous and a carnivorous diet. Thanks to modern technology, we have supplements available to make up for the lack of meat in one's diet. BUT, in order to be successful at removing meat from one's diet, a person has to VERY CAREFULLY watch their protein and calcium intakes. Taking daily supplements and carefully balancing EVERY SINGLE MEAL is necessary to stay healthy while abstaining from meat.
That's why vegetarianism can work for an individual: It is possible.
That's also why vegetarianism won't work for the whole population: It isn't easy.
More or less, people are lazy. Most people aren't overly committed to the vegetarian cause. They'll only go along with a vegetarian diet if it's easy enough for them to handle without inconveniencing themselves. The majority won't be able to maintain a vegetarian diet without experiencing extreme energy issues and bone problems. It'll be a health nightmare; affecting more than half of the population easily, and likely as much as three quarters.
It simply isn't feasible as an alternative for the masses.
I've got more, but I'll leave it at that for now.
i'm not saying that animal cruelty isn't a bad thing, but when there are more people concerned with animals being treated badly than people that are concerned about horrible situations such as darfur or any other humanitarian crisis, something is seriously wrong. there are many things in this world that deserve much more attention than animals are getting.
I fully agree with you all. The conditions in which these animals are kept are utterly disgusting, and it is not right that they should suffer so.
That's why I try to eat as much red meat as possible. Steak, mince, spare ribs, you name it, if it makes any sound from Old Macdonald's Farm, I eat it.
Join with me, and consume as much red meat as possible! The more red meat we eat, the more animals meat producers have to kill to sustain our collective diet! The more animals they have to kill, the fewer have to live and suffer!
Help stop animal cruelty! Eat more red meat!
Yeah, sure, animals in some or most or whatever slaughterhouses are treated cruelly and inhumanely, but, trying to shut them ALL down and making the entire human population a veagan is worse. Millions will lose their jobs, the economy will rupture and break down, there will be riots and then, there will be underground slaughterhouses because of the natural human love for meat. And in these underground slaughterhouses the animals will probably be treated worse. OK. Here we have your 2 choices.
1. Continue with your campaign, putting animals over humans and wreck the country/world if you succeed.
or
2. Water down your campaign to just increasing the well-being and treatment of the animals before they die.
:)
Your choice.
PETA are over reacting. Instead of trowing red paint on the (idoits/) people that wear fur, they should actually go and do something about it. Like kill the people that beat seals to death.
If some-one rich gets red paint on his/her nice fur coat, they buy a new one. lolololol.
[size=24]WARNING WARNING WARNING
This will kill your high! :shakehead2: I just HAD to watch that movie... :barf:
i think everyone should watch "meet your meat" once. if they've seen that and still continue to eat mass-produced flesh, fine. no sense wasting my breath on them. i view those people in the same way they themselves must view factory farmed animals..dead, emotionless machines.
certainly. however, i have found that most veg*ans (though not all) seem to have a better grasp on injustice to both human and non-human animals. and many crusade for positive change in both areas.Quote:
i'm not saying that animal cruelty isn't a bad thing, but when there are more people concerned with animals being treated badly than people that are concerned about horrible situations such as darfur or any other humanitarian crisis, something is seriously wrong. there are many things in this world that deserve much more attention than animals are getting.[/b]
for instance, i was part of an amnesty group in my small hometown. there were 8 members including myself. only after a month did it come up that two others beside myself were veg*an ...they were the only ones i ever met in that city of 75,000..pretty unlikely coincidence.
all aspects of life are interconnected. if someone is alright with exploiting non-human animals, they are more likely to turn a blind eye to the exploitation or suffering of human animals.
if someone is repulsed by the "meet your meat" video and take action to change their lifestyle in order to affect change, they are more likely to take action when they see humans suffering.
the true measure of compassion is whether or not one alleviates the suffering of a weaker being who can offer them nothing. a rwandan child, chinese sweatshop worker, or baby calf has nothing to offer most people, so they don't give a shit.
As long as they can change the channel to a mindless sitcom and forget, wear their favourite shirt produced in a sweatshop, and eat their veal cutlet they are just fine and dandy. the same selfishness and apathy contributes to each decision.
you are right...humans should take priority. just remember that vegans are opposed to exploiting or killing ANY animal, including humans.
^ ^ ^ Exactly. I have no idea why people think if you care about animals then you don't care about humans. There's absolutely no logic to that. I also find that people who are sensitive to animal rights are more sensitive than the average person to human rights as well. Nobody's saying let humans suffer so that animals can benefit. Where's the logic there? I don't get it. I'm a vegetarian and I hate animal abuse/exploitation but I'm a human being and will always choose the life of a human over an animal. It's as simple as that.
"Also, important to note, is that while individuals who are vegetarians may be healthy, they won't exceed expectations often. Without a source of high-protein food (supplements can only do so much), most of their energy is rapidly expelled, and the majority of vegetarians have very little to no endurance."
That's ridiculous! If you meet a veg that is lacking in their diet it's because they haven't done their research as to what they should be consuming to substitute meat. I will repeat for the millionth time, IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE HEALTHY WITHOUT HAVING MEAT IN YOUR DIET!!! Are you guys aware that there are tons of foods out there that are high sources of protein that aren't meat? Go look at the nutritional information on a can or package of beans. I BEG YOU to stop make such ridiculous statements and assumptions. PLEASE. You do not have to "VERY CAREFULLY" watch your calcium and protein intake. Do some research when you first start and you'll be fine. Trust me, it is so simple. Think about how advanced our world is nowadays. You're telling me in this day and age we're not smart enough to figure this stuff out? Think about what you're saying.
For the record, I haven't been eating meat for almost a year and I've honestly never had more energy. I kickbox and I've started running again recently and it's so much more effortless now. I'm also going back to school and doing great at work. Also planning to fit volunteering into my schedule somewhere - for human causes! Not animal. Just in case some of you were going to jump to conclusions.
I agree PETA is extreme and they don't have a good grasp on how to go about making the changes that they're seeking, but I also think they're a group of passionate people who really believe in their cause.
I don't want everyone to stop eating meat, I don't think that's realistic. And I'm fine with people including meat in their diet, but like Beef Jerky said, I'd like to see better treatment for animals before they die. I think that's the aim of a lot of vegan/vegetarians.
Is that really such a terrible thing?
EDIT - Anybody interested in what a vegetarian diet is like can PM me and I will let you know exactly what my diet consists of, the nutritional value, where I did my research for my diet, etc. You may be suprised.
And check these out:
http://veggie.org/veggie/famous.veg.athletes.shtml
http://www.brendanbrazier.com/
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/nutrition/protein.htm
Famous vegetarians and vegans who "exceed/exceeded expectations":
http://www.vegetarian-restaurants.net/Othe...o/FamousVeg.htm
I watched that pointless video narrated by Alec Baldwin (World renowned FAG)
http://thailand.blogs.com/photos/unc...amamerica4.jpg
and while it tries to play to the bleeding heart of people with some gross moments (like the balls being cut off) I fail to see anything particularly wrong with what they were doing. I'm not quite sure how you expect animals that are bred to be food to be treated, anyway? Should they be loved and cared for right up until they get that bolt gun to the head? Give me a break, it's a business centered around killing animals for food. Not only that, but you said 'cows/pigs/chickens lives are equal to human life and if one doesn't care for the animals they must not care for human suffering'?! I'm sorry, but that is quite presumptuous to assume what someone else thinks, and overall an insult to all of human accomplishments. I don't see cows doing anything other than chewing their own cud while humans do things like travel to the moon. They are clearly lower life forms that not only have been food for humans for centuries but probably killed in much worse and more inefficient ways before now.
You shouldn't get so disturbed by the efficiency in which humans kill animals we've been doing it since the dawn of man and its nothing new or mindblowing. And while you may think yourself progressive, and a model for us all, just remember the time period in which you live in, and the fact that your very existence, and daily life of; driving, playing playstation 2, using the internet, and living out all those other dull little facets of your life are contributing to the destruction of natural habitats around the world and the extinction of far more interesting species than cows, pigs, and chickens. If you must have a bleeding heart for some animals than why not turn that energy towards something more realistic like, deforestation or something?
Nobody has better spiritual credentials than myself and I have belonged to many a group in which the vegetarian and vegan diets were glorified, emulated and even enforced. All the propaganda says that it is the most healthy in addition to being the most moral and spiritual. However, after years of direct observation and experience, I found then nearly all a very sickly crowd. I was always struck with the contrast of how energetic and robust the ordinary meat eating public was compared to the 'Healthy' vegetarians who skuffed about barely able to pick up their feet and whose perceived energy levels hardly ever arose much more than a flicker.
Yet, some of the greatest and most energetic of Saints, of the various Higher Religions, had been vegetarians, but then again, some of these Saints had stopped eating entirely. So, I conclude, that to be a healthy Vegetarian qualifies as something of a miracle. Now, miracles are not impossible, but they are most decidedly elusive. Before one becomes a complete vegetarian, it would be good to know for certain that one was absolutely in a state of Grace and in full reception of that Miracle of health, or being a Vegetarian will only run one's self down.
Leo, I agree. My friend was a vegan for 3 years and he; got sick faster, looked sickly skinny, and overall was unhealthy looking.
I forget where I heard this, but I heard that our appendix was initially used to digest bone in a time where we ate the entire animal down to the marrow. MMM, sounds delicious.
Humans were meant to be omnivorous, period.
Just because something has always been done or is tradition doesn't make it right.Quote:
Originally posted by SolSkye
You shouldn't get so disturbed by the efficiency in which humans kill animals we've been doing it since the dawn of man and its nothing new or mindblowing.
I think people need to be honest. They like the taste of meat and that's why they eat it. It's not a neccessity, but we bring in the "but where will you get your protein....." arguements to cover it up. People like meat and that's how they were raised and they don't want to explore any other way of looking at it. It's as simple as that.
You're friend didn't do his research. Don't make assumptions based on one person.Quote:
Originally posted by SolSkye
Leo, I agree. My friend was a vegan for 3 years and he; got sick faster, looked sickly skinny, and overall was unhealthy looking.
Humans were meant to be omnivorous, period.
I'm with you on this. I don't think animal cruelty is right, but damn... I mean, how can killing an animal for food be animal cruelty? We aren't just killing them for no reason....Quote:
Originally posted by The Blue Meanie
I fully agree with you all. The conditions in which these animals are kept are utterly disgusting, and it is not right that they should suffer so.
That's why I try to eat as much red meat as possible. Steak, mince, spare ribs, you name it, if it makes any sound from Old Macdonald's Farm, I eat it.
Join with me, and consume as much red meat as possible! The more red meat we eat, the more animals meat producers have to kill to sustain our collective diet! The more animals they have to kill, the fewer have to live and suffer!
Help stop animal cruelty! Eat more red meat!
I suppose you'd save a zebra from getting torn to pieces by a pack of hyenas? How is standing idly by in that situation any different? The hyenas could get their energy from grass just as the zebra did but naturally their lot in life was different via evolution.
You obviously think humans are born vegetarians but somehow tainted by the availability/taste of meat, and I beg to differ. I think humans genetics, just like lions or hyenas, had chosen long long ago that they prefer a mixed diet with meat. Show me where I'm wrong and how vegatarians/vegans don't have to take all those vitamin supplements just to stay at a normal weight and then I'll agree with you
Because of what has to happen for the animal to get to your plate.Quote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
I mean, how can killing an animal for food be animal cruelty?
"Also, important to note, is that while individuals who are vegetarians may be healthy, they won't exceed expectations often. Without a source of high-protein food (supplements can only do so much), most of their energy is rapidly expelled, and the majority of vegetarians have very little to no endurance."
Note the OFTEN, Kichu. I've argued with you about this before, remember? I agreed, vegetarians may be healthy (see bold), but they won't exceed expectations often
(See bold again). YES! I whole-heartedly agree that vegetarians can be healthy. Yeah, beans have plenty of protein. Between a good mix of beans and a few hearty wheats, you can get a good balance of proteins. Plenty to keep you active. Plenty to give you endurance. The problem is that several vegetarians don't research properly. The information is wide-spread and readily available, but nowhere NEAR all vegetarians or vegans look for it.
Back to the proteins for a moment here. Now, beans provide plenty of raw protein. You look at the nutrition information, and you'll see that. Grams per serving is enormous, even compared to meat. But its the types of proteins that matters--it's a limited selection of amino acids (Beans are lysine rich, but deficient in other areas). That's where the balancing of meals comes in. You can take supplements, or you can balance your meals, or you can be unhealthy and meat-free. Balancing meals well enough to entirely avoid protein supplements is difficult if you haven't looked around. For most people, it's not an enormous concern, though--they don't work out enough to need the wide variety of proteins. They can make do with what they have. But, to be an athlete, ie run a marathon, you'll most certainly have to watch your proteins. VERY, VERY CLOSELY. In a marathon runner, they're more important than ever. Hence the "exceed expectations" clause. Meat carries immense varieties and amounts of proteins, since the animal that the meat came from derived those proteins from plants, and broke down the amino acids into a few new ones.
Essentially, humans need nine basic amino acids. One serving of meat carries moderate to good amounts of all those amino acids. In a marathon runner, they may want to intake an increased amount of these amino acids right before a run, since they'll be burning them straight away and not storing them. Otherwise, not much is needed and the average (non-vegetarian) American intakes roughly eight times as many amino acids as they need, which leads to a few health problems, notably difficulty processing calcium. Thus, the average American only needs one serving of meat a day (less than one dollar menu hamburger). More than that is unhealthy. A weight lifter ought not eat more than three servings of meat a day, since any more than that doesn't significantly boost their capability to increase muscle mass and adds to the same calcium problems.
So, back to vegetarians. A vegetarian, so long as the balance wheats (lysine deficient) with soy or something similar (lysine rich), won't have too many troubles. Also, in the average case, they don't have to balance every meal, only be sure to have both most every day. However, they still will run into endurance trouble if they don't balance their intake before extreme activity (Like marathon running, mountain climbing, or endurance biking). Some troubles might arise if they don't take supplements before such activity, as well (though non-vegetarians run into the same troubles too). In sprints or short-term activity, they'll actually exceed, since their sugars are high from fruits.
On to calcium. LIke I noted in the proteins area, most Americans don't process calcium well because they over-intake amino acids (Thank you, McDonalds). Calcium supplements won't help in this case--they just can't use the calcium, no matter how prevalent it is. Healthy diets are essential.
For vegetarians, caclium isn't an issue. They still have plenty of dairy, and they don't intake as many amino acids as a non-vegetarian, so they're probably in better shape than most here.
For vegans, it's of the utmost importance. They're not intaking more amino acids than necessary, so the process the calcium they get fine, but they need a source of it, and without dairy foods, it's somewhat difficult to find. If they don't find a supplement or a calcium-rich food that isn't dairy, they'll likely have an unpleasant encounter with osteoporosis not far down the road.
Well, people have to survive, and I think we have a right to enjoy what we consume just as much as any other animal. And if animals can kill each other for food, why must we refrain from doing so? We're only animals.Quote:
Originally posted by kichu
Because of what has to happen for the animal to get to your plate.
I can't compare myself to a pack of hyenas, so I WOULD stand by idly in that situation. You guys keep talking about us being at the top of the food chain, that means we're more intelligent than any animal on the planet. The brain of a hyena doesn't compare to that of a human being. They're not going to rationalize whether or not it's moral for them to eat the zebra. Humans have a choice. It is 100% not neccessary for humans to consume meat. But we like the taste. And it's easier for most to eat it and get protein, etc from it then to figure out where else to get that nutrition from. It's an extremely simple idea. Why would you compare what an animal eats to what a human eats? Due to our evolution, we have a choice. Due to their evolution, they don't.Quote:
Originally posted by SolSkye
I suppose you'd save a zebra from getting torn to pieces by a pack of hyenas? How is standing idly by in that situation any different? The hyenas could get their energy from grass just as the zebra did but naturally their lot in life was different via evolution.
You obviously think humans are born vegetarians but somehow tainted by the availability/taste of meat, and I beg to differ. I think humans genetics, just like lions or hyenas, had chosen long long ago that they prefer a mixed diet with meat. Show me where I'm wrong and how vegatarians/vegans don't have to take all those vitamin supplements just to stay at a normal weight and then I'll agree with you
I don't think we're born vegetarians, but I do think we're born with the capacity to see beyond what we've always done and known. Just because we've always eaten meat, doesn't mean it's neccessary now. But please read my posts carefully. I said if people want to eat meat that's fine, but I hope that one day the way the animal is raised and killed will change. Just because I don't eat meat doesn't mean I think everyone else should stop as well. One idea doesn't imply the other.
Like I said, PM me if you're really interested and I'll give you the details. For the record, I'm 5'9 and weigh 150 pounds. I GAINED 10 pounds in the last year. This is the most I've ever weighed.
You're a more evolved animal, are you not?Quote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
And if animals can kill each other for food, why must we refrain from doing so? We're only animals.
I'm no better than any other animal. Why are we so much more evolved? Because we can look at ourselves and find out that every little fucked up detail of our lives? Because we can incite drama? Perhaps you are more 'evolved' because you can refute our animalistic instincts, but if they are our instincts, why should we repress them so? It's like sex...It's a natural instinct, and we can't get around that.Quote:
Originally posted by kichu
You're a more evolved animal, are you not?
All this debate is exhausting, I'm going to eat dinner now. On the menu:
Grilled mushroom burger with spinach, lettuce, tomato with rice and grilled asparagus with vegan butter and a glass of soy milk. (Look at that! Protein!)
Well, I think that's a whole other debate my friend. I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself. Sounds to me like you've got some reading to do.Quote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
I'm no better than any other animal. Why are we so much more evolved? ....
cya :)
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. I mean, I'm no more important than any other being, and neither is anyone else...I don't like to indulge myself in useless feelings of self importance. :wink:Quote:
Originally posted by kichu
Well, I think that's a whole other debate my friend. I'm sorry you feel that way about yourself. Sounds to me like you've got some reading to do.
cya :)
Anyway, I hope that you understand that I am not trying to attack you or your personal preferences. I think that whatever you choose to do with your life is cool. I'm not opposed to vegetarians. I just don't think we should all have to become vegans. It's a matter of preference.
Technically, evolution-wise, we are NOT more evolved than any other animal. Intelligence is a very positive adaptation, but it's no better than any other adaptation, it only gives us the benefit of sentience. Evolution doesn't notice whether we can acknowledge ourselves. It only notices what is successful, and what is not. The only separation between higher and lower forms in evolution is single-celled and multi-celled organisms.
Now, onwards. I honestly believe that SolSkye is out of line here. We're omnivorous, not carnivorous, and due to the benefits of intelligence, we have the ability, and therefore the responsibility, to choose whether we want to eat meat or not. We are very different from hyenas in this respect.
Also, the appendix was likely NOT used to digest bone. The esophagus and small intestine would be incredibly susceptible to injury from sharp protrustions. It's more commonly hypothesized that it was not for digesting bone, but red meat. We still abstained from eating bones, but we didn't have the ability to cook meat, so the appendix handled the raw meat. Still, it's only hypothesis, so it could be proved either way, or more likely neither at all.
Did you read my posts? That's EXACTLY what I said. We DON'T all have to become vegans. It IS a matter of choice. I'd just like the process to change, and for the people who CAN go without meat, good for them. Right? So you and I agree but don't realize it! ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
Anyway, I hope that you understand that I am not trying to attack you or your personal preferences. I think that whatever you choose to do with your life is cool. I'm not opposed to vegetarians. I just don't think we should all have to become vegans. It's a matter of preference.
And don't worry, nothing taken personally :)
Why do you think that support for multiple causes in the pursuit of the ethical treatment of all life forms and the protection of our planet and its natural resources is somehow forbidden? These causes are certainly not mutually exclusive but rather, as has already been out, are all generally founded upon a global perspective and awareness and for that reason, people who possess such an informed worldview are often involved in more than one. When someone says, “I support the ethical treatment of animals,” one cannot rightfully assume that they mean, “I support the ethical treatment of animals and don’t give a damn about deforestation, mass extinction, increasing pollution, habitat destruction, or global warming.”Quote:
Originally posted by SolSkye
If you must have a bleeding heart for some animals than why not turn that energy towards something more realistic like, deforestation or something?
Now, while I don't share Tolin's support of PETA and their often extreme and questionable methods of addressing the problems of animal cruelty, the way in which agribusiness treats animals raised for mass-consumption is truly despicable and not a worthy product of the human intellect. Of course, the way in which agribusiness treats its foreign workers who live in tent cities and use pesticide and fertilizer bags with holes punched in them as showers is also truly despicable. They are indicative of the same socio-economic philosophical malady – the existence of one does not negate the other, just as the prevalence of animal cruelty does not negate the importance of protecting this planet’s forested regions. The very opposite is true.
These are not distinct, isolated issues, and to see them as such is to perpetuate the destructive and dominant (although perhaps, hopefully this is starting to change) belief of our times that major alterations caused by human actions in the chaotically-linked system which is the global ecosystem and planetary dynamics can be contained and treated individually. They can't. Everything is linked – through damping mechanisms and feedback loops and nonlinear relationships – nothing in this world is isolated. Touch one and you touch them all.
(I've been getting this zoned-out, disconnected, floaty, swaying sensation for about the past hour that's made it a bit hard to concentrate, so I hope to hell that when I read this post in the morning, it still makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll fix it then.)
And PS - it's not about self-importance. It's just about recognizing how evolved human beings are and what we're capable of. We've come a long way and done incredible things, there is a huge difference between us and animals. BUT, on the other hand I do think we are all animals with animal insticts, etc like you said, but I don't think that means we need to dismiss where our evolutionary path has taken us.Quote:
Originally posted by Gwendolyn
...I don't like to indulge myself in useless feelings of self importance. :wink:
Don't worry, makes perfect sense.Quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus
...I've been getting this zoned-out, disconnected, floaty, swaying sensation for about the past hour that's made it a bit hard to concentrate, so I hope to hell that when I read this post in the morning, it still makes sense. If it doesn't, I'll fix it then.)
Ack! We AREN'T different from animals evolution-wise!
Socially? Yes.
Differing in intelligent? Yes.
Differing in evolution? NO!
Evolution-wise, humans are just very bald, scrawny, intelligent APES.
But we evolved differently is what I'm saying. Our intelligence is different BECAUSE of evolution.Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
Ack! We AREN'T different from animals evolution-wise!
Socially? Yes.
Differing in intelligent? Yes.
Differing in evolution? NO!
Evolution-wise, humans are just very bald, scrawny, intelligent APES.
Yes. And I agree, we have the responsibility that comes with sentience, including the responsibility of considering the well-being and happiness of other races.
But we aren't MORE evolved, we're only differently evolved.
Isn't that the same thing?Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
Yes. And I agree, we have the responsibility that comes with sentience, including the responsibility of considering the well-being and happiness of other races.
But we aren't MORE evolved, we're only differently evolved.
Not at all. A rabbit and a human are equally adapted: Both fit well into the environment, and neither are in danger of extinction. Complexity and evolution are different things: Evolution tends to further complexity over time, but higher complexity does not necessarily entail higher evolution.
humans weren't "meant" to be anything as far as i can see. you would likely be irritated and call a veg*an on it if they said "humans were meant to be herbivores". if so, don't be a hypocrite. there are healthy omnivores and healthy vegans.Quote:
I forget where I heard this, but I heard that our appendix was initially used to digest bone in a time where we ate the entire animal down to the marrow. MMM, sounds delicious.
Humans were meant to be omnivorous, period.[/b]
humans are have been shaped by evolution in such a way that they require certain elements in their diet. not one of which cannot be derived from plants.
well hey, lets start breeding people for use as slaves again. i mean, what do those dumb niggers and nigger lovers expect for animals that are bred for exploitation anyways?Quote:
and while it tries to play to the bleeding heart of people with some gross moments (like the balls being cut off) I fail to see anything particularly wrong with what they were doing. I'm not quite sure how you expect animals that are bred to be food to be treated, anyway?[/b]
(i am not implying you are a racist, or endorse human slavery, merely showing how that same line of argument was used in the past. essentially it is the exact same reasoning, except non-human slaves are justified instead of human slaves. it is slavery either way..)
who said this? i cannot find it when i skim the posts.Quote:
Not only that, but you said 'cows/pigs/chickens lives are equal to human life and if one doesn't care for the animals they must not care for human suffering'?! [/b]
a main cause of deforestation is to clear grazing/crop land which is used to feed cattle which end up in western fast food outlets.Quote:
If you must have a bleeding heart for some animals than why not turn that energy towards something more realistic like, deforestation or something?[/b]
i find it interesting how some who defend the omnivore lifestyle as emphatically as others defend the vegan lifestyle invariably must resort to the past for justification..
"well, early humanity hunted out of neccessity"
"hey, animals have been domesticated for thousands of years..its one of the reasons we've made it this far as a race"
"there weren't any plant based supplements available in ancient times, and people would have gotten sick without meat"
and so on...
yeah, killing animals for food was neccessary in the past.
it no longer is. anyone who says so is ignorant, plain and simple.
i have no beef (pun intended :wink: ) with someone who fully accepts the fact their meat-eating is unneccessary and purely for pleasure.
but those who try to justify it as "natural", or "neccessary", or "healthier" are plain deluded.
namaste.
I don't get that at all. That makes no sense. What is your definition of evolution?Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
... Evolution tends to further complexity over time, but higher complexity does not necessarily entail higher evolution.
Evolution isn't a sentient entity.
Evolution is the idea that successful genes, those that enable survival and reproduction or enhance said functions, will succeed and eventually become plentiful. Simultaneously, 'weak' genes, that inhibit a creature's ability to survive and reproduce will see a net decrease in the gene pool. Survival and reproduction can be benefitted by intelligence, but they aren't completely reliant on it.
While sentience, and intelligence in general, is a very good adaptation (MASSIVELY increased our capability to survive alternating conditions), it is only that: a very good adaptation.
To say that sentience is a 'higher' form of evolution would imply that sentience is now, or will soon, be omnipresent in all living beings. It isn't so: A creature that isn't sentient can survive perfectly fine, for example, the rabbit. Even bacteria are quite capable of surviving and reproducing, though they don't even have brains, nerve cells, etc.
[quote]Well, I would say uneducated or unaware. I know it's hard to stay positive, but I think it's important not to start attacking people because of lack of awareness or knowledge.Quote:
....
but those who try to justify it as "natural", or "neccessary", or "healthier" are plain deluded.
namaste.
Tsen - I'll have to reply another day, I got sucked into this debate and now it's 10pm and I still haven't had dinner.
Back soon
Sorry if my posts aren't making much sense. It's hard to sum up shortly...
Here's a quote that might help, though it's pretty far from layman's terms.
As for Wombing's quote, "but those who try to justify it as "natural", or "neccessary", or "healthier" are plain deluded. "Quote:
Natural selection occurs when individuals differ in reproductive output for functional reasons, i.e., when differences in reproduction follow from the fact that individuals differ from each other in their ability to tackle the challenges posed by their internal biology and by the biological and physical environment. This ability is a function of the physical structures (traits) of life forms and of how these structures affect their ability to tackle the aforementioned challenges.
Natural selection results in adaptive evolution when traits that enhance organismic abilities and thus the reproductive output of individuals that display them, are heritable. Such traits should become more frequent over the generations.[/b]
It's partially correct, partially incorrect.
Meat in humankind's diet IS natural. Very much so. We've been omnivorous for several million years of evolution. Omnivorous diets include meat, and humans have an inborn tendency, and a NEED for meat. BUT, because of sentience and intelligence, we have the ability to compensate for the nutrients in meat without eating meat. With knowledge, we found that by eating balanced amounts of different vegetables and fruits, we can make up for a lack of meat. That doesn't make eating meat unnatural, it just makes it unnecessary.
In that respect, you are correct. Eating meat is not necessary, though it is undeniably beneficial to an average person, since it provides a multitude of nutrients in a very small amount of food, nutrients that are compensateable only by eating two or more types of veg*an food. So not necessary, but easier. And it IS healthier to eat a balanced and conservative amount of meat and dairy with fruits and vegetables, though the benefit in health can be matched through a careful veg*an diet.
Well, before Man became Man... before Homo Sapien... our predecssors may have been fruit and leaf eaters, but whatever forced them out of the Trees and onto the plains and into the grass-lands turned Humanity, or what would become Humanity, into omnivors.Quote:
Originally posted by SolSkye
Humans were meant to be omnivorous, period.
Particularly to be mentions is our Symbiotic Species, the Dog. Many an anthropologist has put forth the notion that dogs came to us as scavengers, and that we tolerated dogs at our garbage piles. However, the Truth is probably that we were the one's who scavenged on what the dogs were able to kill. Dogs in a pack are so much more efficient killers then are men, that it was inexplicable that any intelligent Anthropologist would figure that the strong end of the Symbiotic Bargain was not the Dog. Man must have made himself useful as a Spotter. Standing on his hind legs the Man could see over the grass and spot far off Game out of the scent range of the Dog. Using Vocalizations, Man learned to entice the Dog to the Game he could more easily spot. Indeed, Language Skill probably first started out not as a means to communication with each other, but as a means of giving cues to a Species that necessarily had to be kept at some distance. We can see that Ages and Monkeys have no need of language to communicate with each other, as hand and face signaling conveys all necessary meaning. But dogs needed to be shouted at from a distance.
Then it is instructive that People Food and Dog Food are so similar.
I did read them. LOL. Sometimes I have a habit of reiterating the obvious. :PQuote:
Originally posted by kichu
Did you read my posts? That's EXACTLY what I said. We DON'T all have to become vegans. It IS a matter of choice. I'd just like the process to change, and for the people who CAN go without meat, good for them. Right? So you and I agree but don't realize it! ;)
And don't worry, nothing taken personally :)
And I do agree with you guys in the sense that the torture of animals unnecessarily is completely wrong.
Next time you post a topic , give a descriptive title that doesn't stink of bigotry.
My [subjective!] stance on animal rights is that humans are the 'special' superior species and inherited the world and all lower life forms from God; whilst we must still respect our Father, I believe that we may do as we desire to the world and it's other animals. So: I'm saying that I think animals deserve no rights whatsoever because they are not human.
P.S. Regarding evolution, I think that it served entirely as a process to create the human being, so it was sentient/intelligent in some regard, perhaps intelligent on a macro-scale even though the individual mechanisms are chaotic. I certainly don't disregard evolution or that evolution is ongoing, but I do think that humanity, or at least a superset of humanity, is as far as the process will go in terms of refinement. Ok I'm sounding like a nutter now so I'll stop but animal rights shouldn't need to exist in my opinion.
P. P. S.
Haha... pure gold. I'm beginning to wander what you eat / feed your dog :PQuote:
Originally posted by Leo Volont
Then it is instructive that People Food and Dog Food are so similar.
P.P.P.S. Removed 'flame', point taken (but I really don't like this topic's title)
Please try to refrain from calling people unnecessary names. Respect the opinions of others, even if you don't agree with them. This is a civilized conversation, and it needs to remain so. If you don't think animals deserve rights, that's alright. But if you flame, it's not acceptable.Quote:
Originally posted by Identity X
Next time you post a topic (I prefer you didn't), give a descriptive title that doesn't stink of bigotry, you hippie bastard.
You seem to be making the assumption that humans are the end of evolution. Just because we're on top doesn't mean we're more evolved. Unless I'm mistaken sharks and alligators are more evolved than us because they've been adapting to the same niche for an extra eon.
Anyway, if you're concerned about animals then vegitarianism isn't the most effective course of action. Remember passenger pigeons? You used to be able to shoot passenger pigeons until you were blue in the face and they'd still thrive. Once we destroyed their habitats, however, they disappeared off the face of the earth.
What I'm saying is that if you value the lives of animals, you should buy some rainforest land and join the fight to end our destruction of wild habitats. The cows that I eat come from farms, not from the wild, and so my eating less cow won't affect the wellbeing of the species I'm trying to help, it'll only save one mass-produced cow from dying. If I ate vegetables instead, it would still take just as much farmland to feed me as it would if I ate cow. It's the expansion of farmland and the reduction of wild terrirory that is the true threat to nature.
your critique of my statement was a apt tsen. i was speaking of those who designate the omnivorous diet as "natural" with "natural" used in an exclusive sense.
actually, this is a common misconception. the biological process of the "energy pyramid" dictates that only about 10% of ingested food becomes part of an animals flesh and bone, the other 90% being lost mostly through heat.Quote:
If I ate vegetables instead, it would still take just as much farmland to feed me as it would if I ate cow. It's the expansion of farmland and the reduction of wild terrirory that is the true threat to nature.[/b]
what this means most simply is that growing food, feeding it to cattle (or sheep, pigs,etc), and then eating those animals is very inefficient compared to growing high protein legumes and grains on that same parcel of land and consuming those directly.
the main reason we are constantly extending farmland is to grow food for the hundreds of millions of animals which inefficiently utilize it to produce meat for the first world. this is particularly evident and documented in latin america.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Agri...re_Organization
the above link briefly describes the FOA's mandate through the uniited nations.
various studies conducted by the FOA and similar organizations show it takes hundreds of time more water, more energy imput (and thus grazing land), and often more human labour to produce meat. as well more fossil fuel is needed for transport.
an excerpt from the "environmental vegetarianism" article on wikipedia
eating meat can be sustainable, just not at the present levels of consumption common in the first world.Quote:
Animals fed on grain and those which rely on grazing need more water than grain crops [2]. According to the USDA, growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the U.S. water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain. [3]. In tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. [4] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits, though this might not be largely true for animal husbandry in the developing world where factory farming is almost non existent making animal based food much more sustainable.[/b]
the most conservative, widely accepted studies show that 8 vegans can healthfully live off of the same amount of land required by one omnivore. other studies put this number closer to 20.
Evolution is the genotypic and phenotypic result of the process of natural selection.Quote:
Originally posted by kichu
What is your definition of evolution?
<=== pwned :oops:
The diet of a human being naturally requires a balance between meat and veggies (I'm oversimplifying). Although I agree animals are kept in horrible tortuous situations, you don't just stop eating meat. I mean, that's ridiculous. If neccessary, buy your meat from organic farms you know or sheesh, go hunting yourself.
Most of these "vegans" don't think twice about smooshing cockroaches but I'm cruel for enjoying a steak? Damnit.
In Switzerland, where my family buys most of the meat we eat, battery farms are ILLEGAL. Farmers raise their cows, pigs and sheep with the utmost care and then humanely kill them. People say "well it's still a life taken". Well.. would you rather live an enjoyable life until you're 20 and be killed or would you rather be killed after a tortuous life? Yeah, thought so.
And I agree that people are morons for focusing only on problems with animal cruelty rather than on HUMANITY. We have many problems, folks, and we should be dealing with them. As harsh as it is, we come before cows on the food chain.
This is getting moved to Extended Discussion. Enjoy the fun!
-Amé
Thanks, Ame, I was thinking the same thing. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Amethyst Star
This is getting moved to Extended Discussion.
no, humans do not require meat, except in rare cases it may be completely necessary. Otherwise, vegeterians can thrive excellently. Especially if we have dairy. Vegans, a little bit more difficult, but definetly possible. Soy is pretty much the ultimate food item.Quote:
Originally posted by Chainsaw Kitten
The diet of a human being naturally requires a balance between meat and veggies (I'm oversimplifying). Although I agree animals are kept in horrible tortuous situations, you don't just stop eating meat. I mean, that's ridiculous. If neccessary, buy your meat from organic farms you know or sheesh, go hunting yourself.
Most of these "vegans" don't think twice about smooshing cockroaches but I'm cruel for enjoying a steak? Damnit.
In Switzerland, where my family buys most of the meat we eat, battery farms are ILLEGAL. Farmers raise their cows, pigs and sheep with the utmost care and then humanely kill them. People say "well it's still a life taken". Well.. would you rather live an enjoyable life until you're 20 and be killed or would you rather be killed after a tortuous life? Yeah, thought so.
And I agree that people are morons for focusing only on problems with animal cruelty rather than on HUMANITY. We have many problems, folks, and we should be dealing with them. As harsh as it is, we come before cows on the food chain.
Name a vegan who doesn't think twice about smashing a cockroach. I'll bet you the majority do.
Hmm, yes I believe that all animals and plants should be raised with care and love, that is the only way we can recieve healthy nutrition. A chicken that is cared for, will die peacefully, and probably not mind, returning to the astral world peacefully as well... but thats just my own little belief, not up for argument lol. The point is care for all beings, plants and animals. I don't want horribly raised and treated vegetables or animals.
I'm back
Tsen - yes, you're right. Saying we're more evolved isn't the right language. My mistake. You're right in saying that we're differently evolved.
My point was that I don't think we should be using phrases like "we're just animals, why should we resist our animal urges." We're just not like that anymore. We've evolved past that. Because we can do things like question our existence, feel compassions towards other living things (humans, animals), etc. we have a responsibility towards other living things that don't have those capabilities. :)
In that case, I agree entirely. :D
Cool man.Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
In that case, I agree entirely. :D
anything i kill, i eat.
unless it's a bug.
p.s. peta and its members can rot in H.E.doublehockeysticks.
Insects are almost pure protein. If you're truly dedicated to a carnivorous code of consumption, you really should reevaluate the role, or lack thereof, of those crunchy cockroaches and grasshoppers in your diet. And honey ants are supposed to tasty, too. Their abdomens just burst in your mouth! Yum yum!Quote:
Originally posted by adidas
anything i kill, i eat.
unless it's a bug.
well i don't kill bugs... with intent. i just assumed that i kill bugs by accident. be their demise via my windshield or via my global warming. i kill deer and javalinas and birds and predators with intent. then i clean them and eat them.Quote:
Originally posted by Peregrinus
Insects are almost pure protein. If you're truly dedicated to a carnivorous code of consumption, you really should reevaluate the role, or lack thereof, of those crunchy cockroaches and grasshoppers in your diet. And honey ants are supposed to tasty, too. Their abdomens just burst in your mouth! Yum yum!
i don't lick them off my windshield.
also... i don't like bug exoskeleton.
But that's what makes them crunchy!
Bleah.
Though deer does taste pretty good.