NationStates Jolt Archive

HI. I am a vegan, everyone keeps telling me that I am OCD. Do you think that it is opsessive or compassionate to be a vegan? Should we draw a line in altruistic thinking? When does empathy go to far? Can it be taken too far?

I think its only a problem when a vegan is pregneant. It is then that I hope you think of the baby and whether or not you think that the baby's health is more important than eating the products and meat of animals.

Personally, I can't live without meat or animal products. It's pretty much a natural thing to be living off animals really...

But that's just me.

i'm vegetarian.


and it's possible to be vegan and pregnant... wtf are you on about there?

people are omnivores in the same way that rats and raccons are. we don't need meat, but if we have it, it's not going to kill us.

I think its only a problem when a vegan is pregneant. It is then that I hope you think of the baby and whether or not you think that the baby's health is more important than eating the products and meat of animals.

Personally, I can't live without meat or animal products. It's pretty much a natural thing to be living off animals really...

But that's just me.

Actually by eating meat we slowly introduce poison into our body. Our intestines are too long to get the meat out of our body before it starts rotting. I am more worried about the pregnant omnivore and her poisoned baby. And Im getting so tired of hearing people say that they "cant live without meat..." because its really not that hard, especially when you think about all that happened to the animal before you selfishly devour its flesh.

I haven't eaten meat in eleven years!

That would be, since I was 3. I'm normal size, normal height, and healthy. Just to debunk anyone who's going to come in saying you need meat to be healthy, or that children need meat-supplied nutrients to grow properly.

Vegetarianism is just a life choice, and no, it's not OCD. Tell "everybody" to shut up, get a life, and quit ramping on about yours..

I haven't eaten meat in eleven years!

That would be, since I was 3. I'm normal size, normal height, and healthy. Just to debunk anyone who's going to come in saying you need meat to be healthy, or that children need meat-supplied nutrients to grow properly.

Vegetarianism is just a life choice, and no, it's not OCD. Tell "everybody" to shut up, get a life, and quit ramping on about yours..

Thats so cool! I have only been a vegan for half a year, since the beginning of lent. I admire you strong sense of compassion.

HI. I am a vegan, everyone keeps telling me that I am OCD. Do you think that it is opsessive or compassionate to be a vegan? Should we draw a line in altruistic thinking? When does empathy go to far? Can it be taken too far?
You are welcome to do as you please. That's the beauty of freedom.

Enjoy your carrots.

But that's as far as it goes. Vegan Activism is likely to lead to a lot of vegans with zucchinis shoved up their bungs.

I have a very good friend who is a vegan. He's the most unhealthy looking specimen of humanity I've ever seen, but I'm sure he has very healthy looking bowel movements. ANd that's what matters. :)

I do have one question though... why do so many vegans want meat-shaped products? Vegan cheese. Vegan hamburbers. Vegan hot dogs. Vegan chinken-like nuggets. Vegan sausage. Vegan pepperoni. I don't get it. :confused:

It's totally your choice to be vegetarian, but humans are omnivores. And meat is tasty.

You are welcome to do as you please. That's the beauty of freedom.

Enjoy your carrots.

But that's as far as it goes. Vegan Activism is likely to lead to a lot of vegans with zucchinis shoved up their bungs.

I have a very good friend who is a vegan. He's the most unhealthy looking specimen of humanity I've ever seen, but I'm sure he has very healthy looking bowel movements. ANd that's what matters. :)

I do have one question though... why do so many vegans want meat-shaped products? Vegan cheese. Vegan hamburbers. Vegan hot dogs. Vegan chinken-like nuggets. Vegan sausage. Vegan pepperoni. I don't get it. :confused:

Those products are good for weening people off meat, personally I don't use much of them. I eat a lot of tofu and love Indian food!

You are welcome to do as you please. That's the beauty of freedom.

Enjoy your carrots.

But that's as far as it goes. Vegan Activism is likely to lead to a lot of vegans with zucchinis shoved up their bungs.

I have a very good friend who is a vegan. He's the most unhealthy looking specimen of humanity I've ever seen, but I'm sure he has very healthy looking bowel movements. ANd that's what matters. :)

I do have one question though... why do so many vegans want meat-shaped products? Vegan cheese. Vegan hamburbers. Vegan hot dogs. Vegan chinken-like nuggets. Vegan sausage. Vegan pepperoni. I don't get it. :confused:
Meat is delicious, killing animals when you don't have to is unethical- thus the soy dogs and tofurky.

It's totally your choice to be vegetarian, but humans are omnivores. And meat is tasty.

Id like to know why you contently think people are omnivores.

Id like to know why you contently think people are omnivores.
Because the definition of an omnivore is "something that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances"?

I mean, like I said, it's totally your choice not to feed on animal substances, but the physiological makeup of humans is omnivorous.

Id like to know why you contently think people are omnivores.

Because we ARE!

It has been proven, and stated many times by the scientific community, that humans brains began to advance when they began to eat meat. Sure, it took a few millenia(ok, ALOT of Millenia), but eating meat superpowered our brains! Sure, you're going to say "Well protein comes from Tofu too!", but do you think our hairy half-man ancestors knew how to cook tofu? Besides, we ALSO grew stronger and faster by HUNTING. Last i checked, a soy bean cant kill an entire village worth of hunters...

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't condem my friends for eating meat; if they want to, them they can.

Oh, and we ate fruits too. But they didnt make us supowerpowered!

mmmmm. meat.

Brains brains. mmmmmm i'm coming to eat your brains.

Oh, and i personally dont have any problems with people who are Vegetarians. I have a few good Vegetarian friends, and they are all cool(although all but one of them has gone back to eating meat.).

I haven't eaten meat in eleven years!

That would be, since I was 3. I'm normal size, normal height, and healthy. Just to debunk anyone who's going to come in saying you need meat to be healthy, or that children need meat-supplied nutrients to grow properly.

Vegetarianism is just a life choice, and no, it's not OCD. Tell "everybody" to shut up, get a life, and quit ramping on about yours..

Now, i can tell that when you were 3 you didnt just decide "Oh, im not gonna eat meat no more!", because its impossible. The human brain isnt developed enough. So im guessing it has something to do with your parents.

Because the definition of an omnivore is "something that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances"?

I mean, like I said, it's totally your choice not to feed on animal substances, but the physiological makeup of humans is omnivorous.

No we arent. Our intestinal track is to long to digest meat. Proportionally our intestinal track is like that of a cow not a wolf. There many herbivorous monkeys and apes that have canine teeth.

Last i checked, a soy bean cant kill an entire village worth of hunters...

I've heard them plotting, though. Those soy beans are up to something. *looks around nervously*

mmmmm. meat.

Brains brains. mmmmmm i'm coming to eat your brains.

Brains are fishfood.

Because the definition of an omnivore is "something that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances"?

I mean, like I said, it's totally your choice not to feed on animal substances, but the physiological makeup of humans is omnivorous.

again, we're omnivores in the same way that rats and raccoons are. we don't need meat, but if we have access to it, it doesn't hurt us (in reasonable portions anyways, that food pyramid reccomends way too much meat fyi).

No we arent. Our intestinal track is to long to digest meat. Proportionally our intestinal track is like that of a cow not a wolf. There many herbivorous monkeys and apes that have canine teeth.

Yes, we are. If we werent supposed to eat meat, why did we start too over 1 million years ago? Shouldnt we have stopped? Nature wouldnt make us do stuff for that long if it didnt intend us too. thats why bunnies dont eat frogs.

What does a rampaging soy bean have to do with the senseless murder of animals!!?

I've heard them plotting, though. Those soy beans are up to something. *looks around nervously*

HOLY OBERSHUTZE!!!!

Run away!!!! Burn the beaners! Burn 'em!

I'm vegetarian but I have absolutely no problems with others eating meat, until they start trying to force meat onto me. A few people I know can't get over the fact that I don't eat meat, and they try almost anything to get me to eat it, they tell me it's unhealthy not to eat meat, I proceed to beat them up to show that being vegetarian hasn't made me weaker, bastards.

For the record I'm actually rather fat, so eating meat would probably have gotten me less healthy, not more so.

Our bodies can digest cardboard does that mean that nature wants us to do it. Nature has nothing to do with it, in nature humans are violent selfish animals. We must rise above nature and do what is RIGHT!

What does a rampaging soy bean have to do with the senseless murder of animals!!?

Ooooh, now your defending the poor little animals?

Listen, humans didnt take over the world by being all "Protect the bunnies, man!" We took over the world because we killed each and every one of our predators. It was eat or be eaten, and we choose to eat. We dominated the earth by killing Wolly Mamoths, Sabre Tooth's, Tigers, Elephants(they gore us, y'know!), and all the other species until we reigned supreme. Plus, as stated before, the meat increased our brain-power, and the tactics increased our wits.

Dont deny nature, Cak, we own this planet, and we can do whatever the hell we like.

I am a vegen too, there is nothing healthier, you can do for yourself, or for your enviroment.

Canines, horses have canines two.

if you just take a look at your teeth that are supposed to canines,

they are the smallest canines there are. they aren't canines.

Our bodies can digest cardboard does that mean that nature wants us to do it. Nature has nothing to do with it, in nature humans are violent selfish animals. We must rise above nature and do what is RIGHT!

YES! WE ARE VIOLENT SELFISH ANIMALS!

How else did we conquer the world?

Plus, think of it this way. Plants are alive too, y'know. Just because the plants cant squell doesnt mean killing them isnt as bad as killing squirrels. They way i see it, we kill em both, we increase our brains and our wit, and then we take over the rest of space.

Conquest is a magnificent thing.

A few people I know can't get over the fact that I don't eat meat, and they try almost anything to get me to eat it, they tell me it's unhealthy not to eat meat, I proceed to beat them up to show that being vegetarian hasn't made me weaker, bastards.


my mom tries to slip meat or meat broths into my food.

i don't think beating her up would help the situation though.

I am a vegen too, there is nothing healthier, you can do for yourself, or for your enviroment.

Canines, horses have canines two.

if you just take a look at your teeth that are supposed to canines,

they are the smallest canines there are. they aren't canines.

Screw the enivronment. Screw the horses.

We've already destroyed this planet, now we need to suck up the resources so we can manage to go to another planet and expand the human race to the farthest boundries of space.

my mom tries to slip meat or meat broths into my food.

i don't think beating her up would help the situation though.

lol.

As long as you dont ally with the hippies, i think being a vegetarian is fine.

But, i swear to GOD, i hate hippies so much...

I'm vegetarian but I have absolutely no problems with others eating meat, until they start trying to force meat onto me. A few people I know can't get over the fact that I don't eat meat, and they try almost anything to get me to eat it, they tell me it's unhealthy not to eat meat, I proceed to beat them up to show that being vegetarian hasn't made me weaker, bastards.

For the record I'm actually rather fat, so eating meat would probably have gotten me less healthy, not more so.


People who eat meat feel the same way about vegitarians calling us heartless murders, because we eat meat. I don't harass you about be a vegitarian why do you have to harass me about being an omnivore. Us killing animals to eat is simply us fufiling our role in the food chain and the circle of life. Some people seem to think that nature is all happy bunnies, its not its a dog eat dog world or more likely dog eats the squirel that was to doumb to run away.

Because we ARE!

It has been proven, and stated many times by the scientific community, that humans brains began to advance when they began to eat meat. Sure, it took a few millenia(ok, ALOT of Millenia), but eating meat superpowered our brains! Sure, you're going to say "Well protein comes from Tofu too!", but do you think our hairy half-man ancestors knew how to cook tofu? Besides, we ALSO grew stronger and faster by HUNTING. Last i checked, a soy bean cant kill an entire village worth of hunters...

Actualy, human brains began to grow at the same time that we started eating meat. So it unclear weather the meat made our brains grow, or because we had bigger brains, we started eating meat.

YES! WE ARE VIOLENT SELFISH ANIMALS!

How else did we conquer the world?

Plus, think of it this way. Plants are alive too, y'know. Just because the plants cant squell doesnt mean killing them isnt as bad as killing squirrels. They way i see it, we kill em both, we increase our brains and our wit, and then we take over the rest of space.

Conquest is a magnificent thing.

The point of life on this earth has nothing to do with owning it, it is all about being morally pure an finding enlightenment!

i'm vegetarian.


and it's possible to be vegan and pregnant... wtf are you on about there?

people are omnivores in the same way that rats and raccons are. we don't need meat, but if we have it, it's not going to kill us.
I meant that a women needs to consume a lot of vitamins and other essential nutrients in order to produce a healthy baby that will take all these nutrients the mother consumes. Nutrients that you can (as far as I know) only get from an animal.

Actualy, human brains began to grow at the same time that we started eating meat. So it unclear weather the meat made our brains grow, or because we had bigger brains, we started eating meat.

Hmmm, good point.

But its still the same, eating meat has enhanced the human race. If we eat only vegetables we'l be 4 foot tall bunny-men by the year 100,000 A.D!

The point of life on this earth has nothing to do with owning it, it is all about being morally pure an finding enlightenment!

Tut tut tut, it is people like you who shall never change the world. You think that the world shouldnt be changed. I, for one, belive Humans first, earth second, and animalsfive-hundred and forty-ninth!

People who eat meat feel the same way about vegitarians calling us heartless murders, because we eat meat. I don't harass you about be a vegitarian why do you have to harass me about being an omnivore. Us killing animals to eat is simply us fufiling our role in the food chain and the circle of life. Some people seem to think that nature is all happy bunnies, its not its a dog eat dog world or more likely dog eats the squirel that was to doumb to run away.

But we are not animals. What seperates us is, not the aposable thumb (of which monkeys have four), but our compassion and empathy. Sadly according to this many of you jackasses are still animals without any sense of morality!!!

What does a rampaging soy bean have to do with the senseless murder of animals!!?

DO you really think the Soy Beans will just stop at us?!? They want fertilizer! Fertilizer comes from animals! Vegetables are Carnivores! :eek:

People who eat meat feel the same way about vegitarians calling us heartless murders, because we eat meat. I don't harass you about be a vegitarian why do you have to harass me about being an omnivore. Us killing animals to eat is simply us fufiling our role in the food chain and the circle of life. Some people seem to think that nature is all happy bunnies, its not its a dog eat dog world or more likely dog eats the squirel that was to doumb to run away.

Did I not just say I had no problems with others eating meat? I said I get pissed off when others think it's fun to brandish meat in my face, and try underhand tactics to make me eat meat.

Actually by eating meat we slowly introduce poison into our body. Our intestines are too long to get the meat out of our body before it starts rotting. I am more worried about the pregnant omnivore and her poisoned baby. And Im getting so tired of hearing people say that they "cant live without meat..." because its really not that hard, especially when you think about all that happened to the animal before you selfishly devour its flesh.
Poisons? Rotting meat inside my body?

I don't know what you think these "poisons" are, but after about 12-13 years, I've yet to see any harmful side effects out of eating meat. Except for the great feeling of being full after a long day, if that is harmful at all.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the rotting meat inside a body. You know as much about the digestive system as I do, apparently. (poison?!?!? I'm sorry but wtf?)

And when I say I can't live without meat, I mean I cannot live my normal, balanced life without my fill of chicken flesh and cow muscle.


It isn't hard really. It's not that selfish, unless you block the fact that all animals are selfish in one way or the other.

Oh, and a pregneant vegan mother is selfish, IMHO. Just my two cents.

Our bodies can digest cardboard does that mean that nature wants us to do it. Nature has nothing to do with it, in nature humans are violent selfish animals. We must rise above nature and do what is RIGHT!

Wow...

I am speechless as this amazing display of... I don't even know what it is.

"Besides, we ALSO grew stronger and faster by HUNTING."

yeah... but you dont hunt your meat.
you buy it at the grocery store like everyone else.

"Besides, we ALSO grew stronger and faster by HUNTING."

yeah... but you dont hunt your meat.
you buy it at the grocery store like everyone else.

That's true. Now I hunt people. But I practice Catch-and-release. :)

Did I not just say I had no problems with others eating meat? I said I get pissed off when others think it's fun to brandish meat in my face, and try underhand tactics to make me eat meat.

Yes, you did unfortunantly others don't share your open mindedness just look at the post one above yours.

How is it more wrong to eat a cow (or part thereof) than a carrot? The carrot is (was) a living organism, as was the cow. Threfore, both are equally wrong.

Until I see evidence that I'm going to Hell or anywhere similar for eating meat, I'll continue to enjoy my steak.

DO you really think the Soy Beans will just stop at us?!? They want fertilizer! Fertilizer comes from animals! Vegetables are Carnivores! :eek:
The milk! IT BURNS MY EYES!

Those eggs! *shudders*

MY MOTHER'S PURSE! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

EEPPP! VANILLA ICE CREAM! GOD HAVE MERCY ON THOSE POOR COWS BEING RELIEVED OF MILK!

"Besides, we ALSO grew stronger and faster by HUNTING."

yeah... but you dont hunt your meat.
you buy it at the grocery store like everyone else.

I meant we(as in our ancestors) did a LONG time ago! If the human race just bought from Grocery Stores all our existance, we'd be these skinny little people who are 4 feet tall and live in dark damp holes in the ground!

I meant we(as in our ancestors) did a LONG time ago! If the human race just bought from Grocery Stores all our existance, we'd be these skinny little people who are 4 feet tall and live in dark damp holes in the ground!
http://www.gravetimes.com/skinny.jpg
Can't help ya with the 4 ft tall part though...

How is it more wrong to eat a cow (or part thereof) than a carrot? The carrot is (was) a living organism, as was the cow. Threfore, both are equally wrong.

Until I see evidence that I'm going to Hell or anywhere similar for eating meat, I'll continue to enjoy my steak.

Yeah! Cows and carrots are both alive!

I should put up signs that say "Vegetarianism is MUDER!"
or "Carrots are living TOO!"

Just to give them hippies a taste of their own medicine(Note: Hippies are the people who dont eat meat because it kills animals. The other reasons, like because you dont like it etc, DONT make you a hippy.)

Hmmm, good point.

But its still the same, eating meat has enhanced the human race. If we eat only vegetables we'l be 4 foot tall bunny-men by the year 100,000 A.D!
Food doesn't really enhance the human race. But, while It hasn't enhanced the human race, it's still tasty.

http://www.gravetimes.com/skinny.jpg
Can't help ya with the 4 ft tall part though...

SEE! T'is EVIL!

(Nice pic Colodia! :D)

Efficiency speaking, it is more than 10 times(I've heard as high as 16) more efficient to just eat the stuff we grow for livestock than to feed the livestock and eat them. Studies also show that cows that eat only grass most of their lives that are plumped up with grain for the last few months have the same quality meat as purely grain-fed cattle. If we practiced more vegetarian habits there would be less world hunger because less crops would be going as cash-crops to feed livestock. Also, animals carry all sorts of fun and exciting parasites and diseases, but thats overhyped to much to make accurate judgements on.

"I don't know what you think these "poisons" are"......

Animal proteins contain inorganic acids which are TOXIC to humans. Only modest amounts of animal protein have been found to result in cancerous tumors in animal studies. Moreover, human studies also support this carcinogenic effect of animal protein, even at usual levels of consumption. In my view, no chemical carcinogen is nearly so important in causing human cancer as animal protein.

The artificial hormones, steroids, and other chemicals injected or fed to the animal to make them grow faster/bigger/healthier (healthier?) don't do us humans any good at all; they are toxic.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), Enteric Diseases Branch, has concluded that subtherapeutic amounts of antibiotics added to animal stock feed have subsequently caused animals to develop highly resistant strains of bacteria (mutant forms of E. coli and others) which are then passed on for human consumption in all meat products. In fact it's estimated that 20-25 percent of all bacterial illnesses (and perhaps 50% of all food poisoning) in the U.S. stem directly from antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria and the consumption of meats. (New England Journal of Medicine Vol 243, p.617-621, 1984)
The response of the European Economic Community to the routine feeding of antibiotics to U.S. livestock (55% of all antibiotics used in the US) was to BAN the importation of U.S. meat. So the answer to the question: "What's for Dinner?" is: Antibiotics, Steroids, Pesticides, DDT, Dieldrin, bacteria and Cholesterol

http://www.juiceguy.com/Meat-toxic-substance-hard-to-digest.shtml

Food doesn't really enhance the human race. But, while It hasn't enhanced the human race, it's still tasty.

Ahem, our brains getting bigger is enhancing.

But meat is still tasty tho!

Please.
Everyone go to http://www.peta.com now!
Then we'll talk!!!!!

Efficiency speaking, it is more than 10 times(I've heard as high as 16) more efficient to just eat the stuff we grow for livestock than to feed the livestock and eat them. Studies also show that cows that eat only grass most of their lives that are plumped up with grain for the last few months have the same quality meat as purely grain-fed cattle. If we practiced more vegetarian habits there would be less world hunger because less crops would be going as cash-crops to feed livestock. Also, animals carry all sorts of fun and exciting parasites and diseases, but thats overhyped to much to make accurate judgements on.

You see, THATS a valid point!

not that "save the bunnies" stuff...

Efficiency speaking, it is more than 10 times(I've heard as high as 16) more efficient to just eat the stuff we grow for livestock than to feed the livestock and eat them. Studies also show that cows that eat only grass most of their lives that are plumped up with grain for the last few months have the same quality meat as purely grain-fed cattle. If we practiced more vegetarian habits there would be less world hunger because less crops would be going as cash-crops to feed livestock. Also, animals carry all sorts of fun and exciting parasites and diseases, but thats overhyped to much to make accurate judgements on.
That wouldn't help the hunger problem much. We already grow enough to feed the world several times over, I would imagine.

Please.
Everyone go to www.peta.com now!
Ahh yes, I haven't had such a good laugh at the PETA Kids section in ages.

Is the flash where the pig acts like Morpheus from The Matrix still around? That busted my ribs (strong thanks to all essential nutrients from meats!)

Please.
Everyone go to http://www.peta.com now!
Then we'll talk!!!!!

PETA?!?!?!

Jesus, we're not STUPID! Peta is full of hippies and anti-meat people! They dont even LISTEN to us meat eaters!

Dont go to PETA! Its nothing but EVIL! They want us to stop testing on animals so we're all going to die because we cant test our medicines!

PETA?!?!?!

Jesus, we're not STUPID! Peta is full of hippies and anti-meat people! They dont even LISTEN to us meat eaters!

Dont go to PETA! Its nothing but EVIL! They want us to stop testing on animals so we're all going to die because we cant test our medicines!

Ahh, I can see now that you are all just a bunch of narrow- minded idoits.

Ahem, our brains getting bigger is enhancing.

But meat is still tasty tho!
Didn't I just say it probably wasn't the meat that enhanced our brains? That wouldn't make sense. Our brains getting bigger to adapt to a new environment, where there is alot of meat, would make much more sense. And, yes, meat is tasty. I don't get why people wouldn't want to dig into a big juicy steak, but it's their choice to miss out on all the tasty meat.

Ahh, I can see now that you are all just a bunch of narrow- minded idoits.

Look whos talking.

Listen, i have one basic thought.

Humans First.

That is survival, if we start putting OTHER species first, we might as well fall down and die. The human race has MUCH to achieve! We can explore the galaxy, discover new worlds, colonize the solar system! Build great cities, enhance life! Im not going to sacrifice that for some CHICKENS!

Ahh, I can see now that you are all just a bunch of narrow- minded idoits.
If you think that nobody should eat meat, then you are the narrow minded one.

Didn't I just say it probably wasn't the meat that enhanced our brains? That wouldn't make sense. Our brains getting bigger to adapt to a new environment, where there is alot of meat, would make much more sense. And, yes, meat is tasty. I don't get why people wouldn't want to dig into a big juicy steak, but it's their choice to miss out on all the tasty meat.

You said it was possible that the meat didnt enhance our brains.

Its you against the discovery, history, and discovery science channel.

(and yes, Steaks ARE tasty. But not without A1.

"Yeah, its that important(tm)."

*Readies a Zucchini* I DID warn him!

*sigh*

Bend over. It'll only hurt for a couple days.

Please.
From Green Peace to PeTA to Amnesty Internation. All life is sacred!!!!!!

Look whos talking.

Listen, i have one basic thought.

Humans First.

That is survival, if we start putting OTHER species first, we might as well fall down and die. The human race has MUCH to achieve! We can explore the galaxy, discover new worlds, colonize the solar system! Build great cities, enhance life! Im not going to sacrifice that for some CHICKENS!
Damn strait!

You said it was possible that the meat didnt enhance our brains.

Its you against the discovery, history, and discovery science channel.

(and yes, Steaks ARE tasty. But not without A1.

"Yeah, its that important(tm)."
It is possible, but it just doesn't make much sense to me. You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want.

Please.
From Green Peace to PeTA to Amnesty Internation. All life is sacred!!!!!!
Then why do we die?

Ooooh, now your defending the poor little animals?

Listen, humans didnt take over the world by being all "Protect the bunnies, man!" We took over the world because we killed each and every one of our predators. It was eat or be eaten, and we choose to eat. We dominated the earth by killing Wolly Mamoths, Sabre Tooth's, Tigers, Elephants(they gore us, y'know!), and all the other species until we reigned supreme. Plus, as stated before, the meat increased our brain-power, and the tactics increased our wits.

Dont deny nature, Cak, we own this planet, and we can do whatever the hell we like.

HELL YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We took over this planet and so all the animals are ours now!!!!

Please.
From Green Peace to PeTA to Amnesty Internation. All life is sacred!!!!!!

SSssssuuuuuuuurrrrreeeee....

I hate ALL those groups(cept AI, they do some stuff for HUMANS!),so im just going to ignore them.

And All life may be sacred, but human life is sacreder!

HELL YA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We took over this planet and so all the animals are ours now!!!!

Power to the people!

http://radio.weblogs.com/0001015/images/2002/09/21/lenin.jpg

Please.
From Green Peace to PeTA to Amnesty Internation. All life is sacred!!!!!!
Nobody likes a hippie.

Nobody likes a hippie.

I second that motion!

PETA?!?!?!

Jesus, we're not STUPID! Peta is full of hippies and anti-meat people! They dont even LISTEN to us meat eaters!

Dont go to PETA! Its nothing but EVIL! They want us to stop testing on animals so we're all going to die because we cant test our medicines!

I think of peta as Nazi's gone vegan. They want to put the needs of animals above those of humans. That is really f*@ked up.

I love animals and belive in helping them. But i would kill an entire race of animals to save one human!!

And before you get into all your intolerance BS, I have nothing against vegetarians, only hippies.

Ahh, I can see now that you are all just a bunch of narrow- minded idoits.


Have you ever stoped to consider the ramifications that would result from ending the raising, selling, and, yes even, slaughtering of livestock? Peronally a large portion of the economy of the state I live in, Nebraska, deals with the raising of livestock I have an uncle that raises livestock and I would hate to see the effect it would have on our economy if the traded in livestock stopped. Besides what would we do with all the animals, keep them as pets, not very economicaly feasible. What else is there to do with them we can't release them into the wild they would destroy it same due to overpopulation and its not like their well adapted for life in the wild seeing as how they have been tame for hundreds of years.

And before you get into all your intolerance BS, I have nothing against vegetarians, only hippies.

Me too. I have plenty o' vege' friends!

I think of peta as Nazi's gone vegan. They want to put the needs of animals above those of humans. That is really f*@ked up.

I love animals and belive in helping them. But i would kill an entire race of animals to save one human!!

I second this motion too!

In my state there was a problem with deer overpopulation. So they finaly had to give more hunting licsences to solve it.

In my state there was a problem with deer overpopulation. So they finaly had to give more hunting licsences to solve it.

Im guessing deer has become a more common food in the area?

Not quite sure of the details. I only heard about it in a short section of news.

HI. I am a vegan, everyone keeps telling me that I am OCD. Do you think that it is opsessive or compassionate to be a vegan? Should we draw a line in altruistic thinking? When does empathy go to far? Can it be taken too far?

I think it's my choice to not eat meat, and I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call myself "enlightened". I just won't eat something I haven't killed, gutted and cooked myself.

However I will refer to people who squeal at the sight of a slaughterhouse yet tuck into a Sunday roast as bloody hypocrites. That's half the reason I started this diet - and I've not looked back since.

I'm definitely an omnivore but I'm not a big fan of red meat. I enjoy it maybe once a week. And I also go though days of just not wanting to eat any kind of meat or seafood (I do love seafood!). People often assume it means I'm a vegetarian and I find it's pretty annoying. Once I was at a barbecue and I did not want to eat meat that day. Just not in the mood. So I grilled a Portabello Mushroom cap with honey garlic sauce and had it in a bun with some brie. And everyone kept asking me "are you a vegetarian?" Why do people fuss over this?

I just wish people wouldn't act like it's unusual for someone to not want to eat meat.

Actually by eating meat we slowly introduce poison into our body. Our intestines are too long to get the meat out of our body before it starts rotting. I am more worried about the pregnant omnivore and her poisoned baby. And Im getting so tired of hearing people say that they "cant live without meat..." because its really not that hard, especially when you think about all that happened to the animal before you selfishly devour its flesh.

Not to be a complete snot, but of course it rots. That's called digestion. Natural processes. And, as much as I admire those friends of mine that are vegetarians for their devotion to an idea, however odd, I am emphatically not a vegetarian.
I am, however - and it is for this reason that I am not a vegetarian, as I have proved that I can indeed do it, in response to 'don't knock it until you've tried it' kind of thoughts - a biologist, and I know that the human body is just not designed to live without meat. There are vitamins, minerals, and other important compounds that we cannot make for ourselves and that cannot be provided by any 'natural' vegetarian regimen. Live without meat, fine - but live without all your vitamin supplements and enhanced this and that?
It just doesn't work like that.

Here's my take on this. All this stuff about humans being meant to be vegetarians because of long stomach tracts or something...It hasn't been that long (evolutionarily speaking) since humans discovered meat as a food source, so maybe we haven't finished evolving to the stage of having a digestive tract that is perfectly suited for meat eating. But anyway, from what i've learnt, humans managed to evolve into something that could rise to the top of the food chain by finding a source of food rich in energy and protein. Bone marrow, which was scavenged from carcasses after it had been picked clean by other animals. This gave early humans the boost they needed to become more than a plain dwelling ape. As they started to become larger and stronger through having a good source of protein and energy, which was much more easily attained through eating marrow than roots and berries and so forth, they started hunting and that just sped the process along.

That's pretty much it. I'm just really sick of some vegetarians pulling the whole "i'm superior to you because I do this and blah blah blah, much like 'born again' christians, for me personally I find it very offensive, as I have a brain, I can make up my own mind on things and I HATE being to what to do by others. By as for the economy minded people, leave vegetarians alone, without them people working in tofu factories would be out of a job.

People who eat meat feel the same way about vegitarians calling us heartless murders, because we eat meat. I don't harass you about be a vegitarian why do you have to harass me about being an omnivore. Us killing animals to eat is simply us fufiling our role in the food chain and the circle of life. Some people seem to think that nature is all happy bunnies, its not its a dog eat dog world or more likely dog eats the squirel that was to doumb to run away.
to be fair, i never point out the downsides of eating meat until someone tries to force me to eat it.

i don't think many vegetarians do so either. it's the few that do who make the rest of us look bad, unfortunately. :(

Not to be a complete snot, but of course it rots. That's called digestion. Natural processes. And, as much as I admire those friends of mine that are vegetarians for their devotion to an idea, however odd, I am emphatically not a vegetarian.
I am, however - and it is for this reason that I am not a vegetarian, as I have proved that I can indeed do it, in response to 'don't knock it until you've tried it' kind of thoughts - a biologist, and I know that the human body is just not designed to live without meat. There are vitamins, minerals, and other important compounds that we cannot make for ourselves and that cannot be provided by any 'natural' vegetarian regimen. Live without meat, fine - but live without all your vitamin supplements and enhanced this and that?
It just doesn't work like that.

True true, thats a valid point. Expecially seeing how you a biologist. And i totally agree with it.

Here's my take on this. All this stuff about humans being meant to be vegetarians because of long stomach tracts or something...It hasn't been that long (evolutionarily speaking) since humans discovered meat as a food source, so maybe we haven't finished evolving to the stage of having a digestive tract that is perfectly suited for meat eating. But anyway, from what i've learnt, humans managed to evolve into something that could rise to the top of the food chain by finding a source of food rich in energy and protein. Bone marrow, which was scavenged from carcasses after it had been picked clean by other animals. This gave early humans the boost they needed to become more than a plain dwelling ape. As they started to become larger and stronger through having a good source of protein and energy, which was much more easily attained through eating marrow than roots and berries and so forth, they started hunting and that just sped the process along.

That's pretty much it. I'm just really sick of some vegetarians pulling the whole "i'm superior to you because I do this and blah blah blah, much like 'born again' christians, for me personally I find it very offensive, as I have a brain, I can make up my own mind on things and I HATE being to what to do by others. By as for the economy minded people, leave vegetarians alone, without them people working in tofu factories would be out of a job.

HA! I was RIGHT! The meat DID superpower us!

Oh, and Cakkivatti? Dear child, don't call others narrow-minded idiots with such heavy scorn - it makes you look like a hypocrite.
Especially when you misspell idiots.

There are vitamins, minerals, and other important compounds that we cannot make for ourselves and that cannot be provided by any 'natural' vegetarian regimen. Live without meat, fine - but live without all your vitamin supplements and enhanced this and that?
It just doesn't work like that.

what are you talking about?

you can get all the amino acids from veggies, you just have to mix them up, similarly with minerals. for instance, wheat is an excellent source of iron.

it is quite possible to live healthily as a vegetarian without supplements and enhanced foods.

Oh, and Cakkivatti? Dear child, don't call others narrow-minded idiots with such heavy scorn - it makes you look like a hypocrite.
Especially when you misspell idiots.

It's true, y'know

what are you talking about?

you can get all the amino acids from veggies, you just have to mix them up, similarly with minerals. for instance, wheat is an excellent source of iron.

it is quite possible to live healthily as a vegetarian without supplements and enhanced foods.

Hey, hes the biologist!

*munches on a hunk of smoked gouda* It's amazing whan can be done with simple cow milk. Yum.

In my state there was a problem with deer overpopulation. So they finaly had to give more hunting licsences to solve it.
you know, if they didn't kill so many wolves, chances are they wouldn't have an excess of deer.

for the record, i don't oppose hunting for food, it's hunting for sport that is annoying. if you're going to kill it cleanly and use all the parts of the animal, then go right ahead. just don't hunt them to extinction...

Hey, hes the biologist!
and i'm the vegetarian who doesn't live off supplements and is perfectly healthy. and who has been perfectly healthy for 5 years without eating meat. i think i've gone through enough empirical experience with this...

besides, i learned about the combining amino acids thing in biology class in highschool...

note, i'm not sure how well things go for vegans... i know it's a lot harder to pull off...

So I grilled a Portabello Mushroom cap with honey garlic sauce and had it in a bun with some brie.

that sounds rather yummy.

She. She's the biologist.

As far as the intestines go, we have longer ones than pure carnivores to enable us to digest vegetables. I would also like to note, however, that we don't have the wicked-long, multi-chambered jobs that pure herbivores have..... it's that whole omnivorous thing, back to bite you again.
Or would that last bit be a bad word choice for this post? ::ironic eyebrow::

Didn't I just say it probably wasn't the meat that enhanced our brains? That wouldn't make sense. Our brains getting bigger to adapt to a new environment, where there is alot of meat, would make much more sense. And, yes, meat is tasty. I don't get why people wouldn't want to dig into a big juicy steak, but it's their choice to miss out on all the tasty meat.

oddly enough, i don't miss steak.

i miss suicide wings and shrimp and that's about it.

As far as the intestines go, we have longer ones than pure carnivores to enable us to digest vegetables. I would also like to note, however, that we don't have the wicked-long, multi-chambered jobs that pure herbivores have..... it's that whole omnivorous thing, back to bite you again.
Or would that last bit be a bad word choice for this post? ::ironic eyebrow::

i really don't care. all i know is that i'm prefectly fine without enhanced, supplemented foods and i haven't been eating meat for 5 years...

i'm just saying that it can be done healthily. (if that's a word, and if it's not, you know what i mean)

oddly enough, i don't miss steak.

i miss suicide wings and shrimp and that's about it.

*gasp*!

You must not have used A1 Sauce then!

"Yeah, its that important(tm)"

you know, if they didn't kill so many wolves, chances are they wouldn't have an excess of deer.

for the record, i don't oppose hunting for food, it's hunting for sport that is annoying. if you're going to kill it cleanly and use all the parts of the animal, then go right ahead. just don't hunt them to extinction...
I don't think it's, you know, leagal to hunt wolves.

oddly enough, i don't miss steak.

i miss suicide wings and shrimp and that's about it.
Whatever floats your boat.

Efficiency speaking, it is more than 10 times(I've heard as high as 16) more efficient to just eat the stuff we grow for livestock than to feed the livestock and eat them. Studies also show that cows that eat only grass most of their lives that are plumped up with grain for the last few months have the same quality meat as purely grain-fed cattle. If we practiced more vegetarian habits there would be less world hunger because less crops would be going as cash-crops to feed livestock.
let's not even start on how they dig up shrimp...

that's supposed to be one of the processes that expend the most energy for how much you can get eating them, not to mention the damage to the ocean bottoms and thus, the ecosystem of the area.

and for those of you who are saying how much better humans are than the other animals and shit... just remember where you'd be if not for the other animals. human beings could not just live independantly of other species (plant, animal, bacterial et c) on this planet and destroying other species does affect us.

*gasp*!

You must not have used A1 Sauce then!

"Yeah, its that important(tm)"

no, it was all about the worchesterchire sauce. that shit is good.


but has anchovies in it :(

Not to be a complete snot, but of course it rots. That's called digestion. Natural processes. And, as much as I admire those friends of mine that are vegetarians for their devotion to an idea, however odd, I am emphatically not a vegetarian.
I am, however - and it is for this reason that I am not a vegetarian, as I have proved that I can indeed do it, in response to 'don't knock it until you've tried it' kind of thoughts - a biologist, and I know that the human body is just not designed to live without meat. There are vitamins, minerals, and other important compounds that we cannot make for ourselves and that cannot be provided by any 'natural' vegetarian regimen. Live without meat, fine - but live without all your vitamin supplements and enhanced this and that?
It just doesn't work like that.

While you may have some experience in the field of biology, you are still plain wrong in saying that humans need meat. It's true that a pure vegan diet won't get you much vitamin B12 unless you really like your yeast extract, but I'm surviving quite healthily on no more animal products than milk and the occasional egg.

Protein comes from nuts, various vitamins from citrus and other fruits, and the rest of your daily allowance of vitamins and minerals can come from various other fruit, veg and fungus. B12 is the only thing a purely vegan diet is really deficient in and again - yeast extract solves that problem if you're really into it. That's vegemite or marmite, to the uninitiated.

Not trying to be holier than thou - but you do seem to have some flawed reasoning there.

I'm not sure I could long keep my sanity without cheese.

*blink* Bad choice of words.

let's not even start on how they dig up shrimp...

that's supposed to be one of the processes that expend the most energy for how much you can get eating them, not to mention the damage to the ocean bottoms and thus, the ecosystem of the area.

and for those of you who are saying how much better humans are than the other animals and shit... just remember where you'd be if not for the other animals. human beings could not just live independantly of other species (plant, animal, bacterial et c) on this planet and destroying other species does affect us.
Of course humans wouldn't survive without other animals, but that doesn't make them our equals or better than us. We are still masters of the Earth. Thats what makes us superior.

I don't think it's, you know, leagal to hunt wolves.

generally there should be enough wolves around to keep the deer population in check though.

i'm guessing that it was made illegal to hunt wolves because they were hunted near extinction or something... if you take out the predator in a system, then the prey will flourish to the point where their environment has to trim them back (i.e. they start to starve) nature is pretty self regulating though. while there may be fluctuations in the populations, they remain at reasonable levels. for instance around my house, we have rabbit years and fox years. some years there will be rabbits hopping everywhere, other years you'll hardly see a rabbit, but there will be foxes randomly sneaking around.

Maybe this would be a good time to point out that a vegan-type actually started all this? She asked others to tell her whether she was enlightened or OCD... although it seems to have devolved into her and a handful of supporters lecturing the meat-eaters on their eating habits.
And as far as that goes, I'm perfectly fine with other people eating whatever the heck they want. In fact, I cook very good vegan mushroom pasta, and I make sure to offer a vegetarian and/or vegan dish when I host anything, depending on who is coming. I certainly would never go so far as to try to trick someone into eating meat, or harangue them about their eating habits.
I'm just saying that it isn't the pure, enlightened, morally wondrous thing that they preach it as, nor is it entirely healthy. Nor is eating meat reprehensible - I deplore sport-hunting, but killing to eat is entirely another matter.

And I expect the same from vegetarians and vegans in regards to my eating habits. Consideration.

generally there should be enough wolves around to keep the deer population in check though.

i'm guessing that it was made illegal to hunt wolves because they were hunted near extinction or something... if you take out the predator in a system, then the prey will flourish to the point where their environment has to trim them back (i.e. they start to starve) nature is pretty self regulating though. while there may be fluctuations in the populations, they remain at reasonable levels. for instance around my house, we have rabbit years and fox years. some years there will be rabbits hopping everywhere, other years you'll hardly see a rabbit, but there will be foxes randomly sneaking around.
Mabey there was some kind of disease or something that killed them off. I told you, I don't know the details.

Maybe this would be a good time to point out that a vegan-type actually started all this? She asked others to tell her whether she was enlightened or OCD... although it seems to have devolved into her and a handful of supporters lecturing the meat-eaters on their eating habits.

and then you come in here and tell us all that you know what's best and that we're supposed to eat meat. don't get all high and mighty there.

I'm just saying that it isn't the pure, enlightened, morally wondrous thing that they preach it as, nor is it entirely healthy.

if done properly, it is healthy. similarly, one can eat meat in a very unhealthy manner...

And I expect the same from vegetarians and vegans in regards to my eating habits. Consideration.

and telling us that it's terribly unhealthy (when it's not) is being considerate?

Mabey there was some kind of disease or something that killed them off. I told you, I don't know the details.

oh, i don't know either. but yeah, again, so long as they're all eating what they kill, i see nothing wrong with it. i'm just saying that the wolf population should be high enough to keep the deer numbers down.

Physiologically-speaking, the human body is designed to eat meat. And vegetables. Both. There's no 'but I'm healthy without it,' 'it's so cruel' reasoning that gets around that physical fact. Your intestines are the same as all the rest of ours; you don't have some sort of extra organ that just makes you so holy you can live without it.
I wasn't saying that you, personally, are supposed to eat meat. That's your choice, fine. I was saying that, as a species, that's the way we're designed.
One can do anything in a very unhealthy manner, up to and including exercise, eating or not eating meat, and posting on forums. But there are some things that humans are physiologically designed to do.
(And if I repeat myself, it's because some apparently missed what I was saying before.)
I do consider it considerate to tell you that it isn't always healthy, so that those who listen to you and believe all the nonsense I heard earlier about moral purity don't find themselves in a hospital somewhere with serious malnutrition and anemia.

Cakkivatti you sound/act/talk/ect. so freakin close to this vigen girl that i know that its kinda creaping me out so i have just gota ask if your name is ruthie and if you, just within the last few weeks, transfegrd out of cherokee high school?????????

Yummy. Hamburgers.

I fully support eating meat, I just don't support the way resources are used to do it. While its true feed companies depend on livestock farming to survive, livestock farmers could actually get along with conventional grazing supplemented by grain feeding. We could technically be raising the same amount of animals, but using the high-grade food ourselves.

My problem comes from third-world countries starving because they don't own their own land, or don't have enough money to buy the food produced by the international conglomerates that do own it. There is enough food easily for everyone in the world to get over 2000 calories a day, so the thousands starving to death is all the more sad because it is preventable. I read an estimate that if the food grown to feed livestock was diverted to feeding people, it would have the capacity to feed roughly a billion.

It is perfectly possible to get all essential nutrients from only vegetable and dairy products(and seriously, if you've ever had a Boca Burger you'd know it can taste great) and it would be better off for the world if we used our vegetable resources for ourselves. The only thing stopping this is a large economical stranglehold and a pack mentality that eating meat=badass combined with the false notion that grain-fed meat=superbadass.

When you say people first, I agree with you! We should be the first to reap the rewards of the harvest, not the animals.

Actually by eating meat we slowly introduce poison into our body. Our intestines are too long to get the meat out of our body before it starts rotting. I am more worried about the pregnant omnivore and her poisoned baby. And Im getting so tired of hearing people say that they "cant live without meat..." because its really not that hard, especially when you think about all that happened to the animal before you selfishly devour its flesh.

Pure bullshit. Our intestines produce special acids designed to deal with animal proteins, preferably in the raw form. Plus, for centuries one of the required vitamins for out survival could only be gotten from meat. Yeast didn't exactly become viable until recently in human evolution. Nature specifically designed us to be able to digest meat and plant matter.

If you're going to be a vegan, at least get your biology right.

And PETA is a stain on both the animal rights and vegetarian movements and their semi-terrorist actions are the source of why vegans and vegetarians come to be viewed as best locked up in a padded cell for society's protection. Nor do they always know what they are talking about.

And before you say anything, I have nothing against vegetarians in reality, despite my arguing against them on here. But the ones I know at least know what they are talking about.

A real man's response to PETA (http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html)

Maddox! Man, I love that guy. In a platonic fanboy sense, of course.

Well, simply put, look at vegetarains that look at eating meat in two ways: those who don't eat it for health reasons or those who don't it because of how the animals are treated. My cousin is vegetarian because she's gotten sick from meat several times, so she just doesn't eat it anymore. Given I know people who's livelyhood is cattle ranching, I tend to disagree more with the ones who have the moral issue with how the animals are treated. I know Dakini and Cakkivatti will go after me for saying this but I don't really care.

Physiologically-speaking, the human body is designed to eat meat. And vegetables. Both. There's no 'but I'm healthy without it,'
...

But I'm still healthy without it, or at least no worse than before I stopped eating meat. My continued posting to this forum for the past two years should prove my status as still living, no?

I'm not going to force anything on you. But you are definitely, unarguably, wrong, at least as far as needing meat is concerned.

A real man's response to PETA (http://maddox.xmission.com/sponsor.html)

Thank god!

Take that you hippies!

Thank god!

Take that you hippies!

Lol. I loved that pic!

But I'm still healthy without it, or at least no worse than before I stopped eating meat. My continued posting to this forum for the past two years should prove my status as still living, no?

I'm not going to force anything on you. But you are definitely, unarguably, wrong, at least as far as needing meat is concerned.

Actually, if you are eating the recommended proportions of everything else, you are less healthy without it unless you increase in yeast-products or take B12 supplements.

Well, my only problem is with the ethical treatment of animals. I'm not a militant PETA person or something, and I know of plenty of animals that are raised for food that are treated well. What worries me are the ones that aren't. I just don't see why animals have to be tortured to feed people. Anyway, even fish farms are introducing captive bolt guns to stun their fish because they claim it results in better meat.

Actually, if you are eating the recommended proportions of everything else, you are less healthy without it unless you increase in yeast-products or take B12 supplements.

If I'm less healthy, then I'm obviously not eating the recommended proportions of everything else, am I?

I'm just as healthy, if not more so, than when I used to tuck into beefburgers. I also happen to like Marmite, so B12 isn't a problem - and I'm not averse to eggs and dairy, so that's another source. The idea that if you stop eating steak you instantly turn anaemic is a big fat lie. My continued existance is conclusive proof of this, wouldn't you say?

I won't claim myself to be the epitome of health, but there are other factors outside my diet that contribute to that. What I will say is that I am just as healthy as I was, if not healthier. I'm not on a moral crusade, I'm not trying to force you to eat what I want you to eat. If I'm trying to send any message out, it's to the hypocrites who'll cry at Bambi's mother getting shot and faint at the sight of blood, shortly before tucking into a steaming mound of venison. Duh?

I purposefully avoid going out to dinner with groups of people so people like Maddox (and I know a couple of "REAL MEN[tm]") have no right to complain about having to go out of their way to please me. If he wants to ruin his guts eating three times the amount of red meat that the human body is designed to take (there's that designed to catchphrase again), then that's his stupid fault. If he wants to die with clogged arteries at 36, that's his choice. I won't take that away from him. However when I see people so obviously pushing bullshit into forums, I will speak against it. If Maddox gets his knickers into a twist because of this, good. I hope I'm in his next article.

So please, somebody tell me that I'm not as healthy as I could be if I just ate some steak. I could do with a good laugh.

__
23.5 Real Men got their panties in a bunch reading this.

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.

So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.

Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off; not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?

I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY MADOX WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No shit? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a mission to prevent "the suffering of living animals." This email I received, and many like it is the whole reason I wrote the article in the first place. My opinions are kept to myself on my personal web page. I don't remember asking anyone to read a damn thing on my website. When you open up your inbox, you don't find it full of my opinions, and if you do I didn't send them to you. I'm not standing on the street corners protesting, I'm not putting fliers on your car and I'm not putting ads on TV and in magazines. I'm not shoving my agenda down your throat, don't shove your agenda down mine. All you dumbass activists need to get bent already.

Fun with facts: vegetarians love to boast outrageous figures like "it takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef and only 20 gallons to produce one pound of wheat." I've heard figures ranging from 2,000 to 5,000, and vegetarians will be damned if they include a source so we'll take the mean (that means "average") and go with 3,500. The average person consumes 1.5 million gallons of water every year (it takes water to grow and produce the food you eat in addition to the water you drink, quit emailing me you morons). Why isn't PETA protesting overpopulation of humans on the street corners? Why isn't PETA passing out free condoms or throwing javelins in your cock when you walk down the street if they really cared about water consumption? It's not like that water just suddenly disappears. The earth has had about the same amount of water for 2 billion years. So if a pound of beef takes 3,500 gallons of water, what difference does it make? How many vegetarians drive a car? To make a car (including tires), it takes about 40,000 gallons of fresh water. That's not including the gas it takes to run the car, the electricity to run the gas station, the water used to create the boat that brought your precious oil, the water used to create the pavement you drive on, the destruction of toxic chemicals that went into creating your clothes, and the electricity you use every day to send me stupid emails over the internet. Every year you are directly responsible for the consumption of billions of gallons of water. There are 26 million people suffering preventable brain damage from iodine deficiency, and another 1.5 billion people at risk. Nevermind that, you have animals to save. By driving your cars, you pump billions of tons of poison into the atmosphere and you're slowly killing us all. The computer you use requires 250 watts of electricity, let alone the billions of computers required to keep you on the internet. All consuming energy. All contributing to pollution. Let's just ignore those minor hypocrisies. Someone wants to enjoy a burger and you'll be damned if you're going to let them.

What makes you think that animals suffer in slaughter houses anyway? I think it would rule to be raised for slaughter. Get all the free steroids you want, free meals and plenty of good company--hell, you have it made. Then when you're at the prime of your life, you get your head generously chopped off so you don't have to live through the suffering of old age. Not only that, but you can die with the satisfaction of knowing that somebody is going to enjoy eating a burger made out of you. What's more humane? Being slaughtered for meat or having to spend 8 hours a day, 40 hours per week in a cubicle for the rest of your life with assholes who listen to shitty music without headphones, then retiring and withering away with old age and cancer as your obnoxious kids grow up and treat you like shit? Slaughter please.

take THAT you vegetarians!

Id like to know why you contently think people are omnivores.

Humans are omnivores because we have a injestive and digestive system that is not adapted to specific diets. Like most every other omnivore, our track is shorter than herbivores, and longer than carnivores... our closest animal relative is an omnivore, human history is hunter/gatherer. We are capable of surviving on either/or.

If I'm less healthy, then I'm obviously not eating the recommended proportions of everything else, am I?

Actually, a proper vegetarian diet involves eating improper portions of everything else, as the proper portions assume you also eat meat or meat products. So, you are less healthy if you follow the proper portions if you don't eat meat or meat products.

I'm just as healthy, if not more so, than when I used to tuck into beefburgers. I also happen to like Marmite, so B12 isn't a problem - and I'm not averse to eggs and dairy, so that's another source. The idea that if you stop eating steak you instantly turn anaemic is a big fat lie. My continued existance is conclusive proof of this, wouldn't you say?

Anaemia is, from what I have heard, related to iron content in blood. That shouldn't be a problem for anyone. And people don't exactly die from anaemia if it is within a certain range.

I won't claim myself to be the epitome of health, but there are other factors outside my diet that contribute to that. What I will say is that I am just as healthy as I was, if not healthier. I'm not on a moral crusade, I'm not trying to force you to eat what I want you to eat. If I'm trying to send any message out, it's to the hypocrites who'll cry at Bambi's mother getting shot and faint at the sight of blood, shortly before tucking into a steaming mound of venison. Duh?

Actually, I was insulted by that movie. You hunt in the Fall, not Spring, by which time the young are already at least half-grown and are capable of taking care of themselves. The idiots who made the movie don't get it.

And, I used to help slaughter chickens that were later turned into the stew I ate. The first time I was nearly sick, but that was because of the fact the body was still flopping. I got over it.

I purposefully avoid going out to dinner with groups of people so people like Maddox (and I know a couple of "REAL MEN[tm]") have no right to complain about having to go out of their way to please me. If he wants to ruin his guts eating three times the amount of red meat that the human body is designed to take (there's that designed to catchphrase again), then that's his stupid fault. If he wants to die with clogged arteries at 36, that's his choice. I won't take that away from him. However when I see people so obviously pushing bullshit into forums, I will speak against it. If Maddox gets his knickers into a twist because of this, good. I hope I'm in his next article.

You have to email him to get in an article. Then you volunteer to be called an idiot, ridiculed, and have any facts you get wrong pointed out to you in the most insulting fashion.

And the design portion is what gets most people: Those recommendations they put out for food stresses grains, vegetables, and fruits for a reason.

So please, somebody tell me that I'm not as healthy as I could be if I just ate some steak. I could do with a good laugh.

You obviously know what you're talking about. I mistook you for one of the group that started this. As such, I apologize for my placing you in the wrong category and tip my hat to you. You're the type of vegetarian I want to see on here arguing for your cause.

23.5 Real Men got their panties in a bunch reading this.

Correction: 22.5 The 23rd was busy chuckling at himself.

Correction: 22.5 The 23rd was busy chuckling at himself.

Who the forgemister was the .5?

Who the forgemister was the .5?

The one that's actually a woman.

Edit: The above is not meant to be sexist, just a joke on the standards of what a "real man" are.

The one that's actually a woman.

Edit: The above is not meant to be sexist, just a joke on the standards of what a "real man" are.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhh...

mmmkay.

I do consider it considerate to tell you that it isn't always healthy, so that those who listen to you and believe all the nonsense I heard earlier about moral purity don't find themselves in a hospital somewhere with serious malnutrition and anemia.
well, i'm not in a hospital for malnutrition and anemia, now am i?

and hell, i'm living on a student budget and don't even have time to go grocery shopping every week. if i had more money and time on my hands, imagine what yummy and better things i could cook.

and i never said that everyone else shouldn't eat meat. i don't care what everyone else does. you're sitting there doing the same thing that my mother does, that's what's ticking me off. and i will reiterate: you don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

May not be the most healthy thing but damn, it tastes good.

Given I know people who's livelyhood is cattle ranching, I tend to disagree more with the ones who have the moral issue with how the animals are treated. I know Dakini and Cakkivatti will go after me for saying this but I don't really care.
why do you assume i'd go after you?

i'm only going after you now because of that assumption.

why do you assume i'd go after you?

i'm only going after you now because of that assumption.



Remember that PETA bashing thread I made? Ever since then, I thought you would always go after me on issues of meat eating and vegetarianism.

well, i'm not in a hospital for malnutrition and anemia, now am i?

and hell, i'm living on a student budget and don't even have time to go grocery shopping every week. if i had more money and time on my hands, imagine what yummy and better things i could cook.

and i never said that everyone else shouldn't eat meat. i don't care what everyone else does. you're sitting there doing the same thing that my mother does, that's what's ticking me off. and i will reiterate: you don't need to eat meat to be healthy.

I ne'er said that! All i did was fight the evil hippies and say that meat caused humans to evolve bettererer!

Plus i said that humans were better than animals(which is true)

http://home.stny.rr.com/aaron56/che.gif
Power to the people!

I haven't eaten meat in almost 24 years. If you count my time in the womb, make that closer to 25.

My mother was vegetarian during both her pregnancies. I have never ever eaten meat, nor do I plan to start. I am almost unbelievably healthy, a normal size -- and actually fairly well-built (but not terribly large) from regular workouts. My younger brother is quite big, although unfortunately he is a bit rounder than he should be. He is a few inches taller than normal.

The point being, you don't need meat to be "healthy," nor for the health of an unborn child. Neither do you need meat to build "strong muscles." My brother and I do just fine... and actually, one of the strongest men I have ever known, a friend who has lifted religiously since college, has been a strict vegan for most of his life.

I ne'er said that! All i did was fight the evil hippies and say that meat caused humans to evolve bettererer!

Plus i said that humans were better than animals(which is true)

http://home.stny.rr.com/aaron56/che.gif
Power to the people!
i wasn't responding to your post.

i was responding to the guy who is in bio and thus acts like he's a nutrition expert.

Remember that PETA bashing thread I made? Ever since then, I thought you would always go after me on issues of meat eating and vegetarianism.
i don't even remember that thread...

I ne'er said that! All i did was fight the evil hippies and say that meat caused humans to evolve bettererer!


http://www.fscked.co.uk/wysnuu/xz.jpg
Bring it on, burger-boy. My special mushroom powers will pwn j00!

I haven't eaten meat in almost 24 years. If you count my time in the womb, make that closer to 25.

My mother was vegetarian during both her pregnancies. I have never ever eaten meat, nor do I plan to start. I am almost unbelievably healthy, a normal size -- and actually fairly well-built (but not terribly large) from regular workouts. My younger brother is quite big, although unfortunately he is a bit rounder than he should be. He is a few inches taller than normal.

The point being, you don't need meat to be "healthy," nor for the health of an unborn child. Neither do you need meat to build "strong muscles." My brother and I do just fine... and actually, one of the strongest men I have ever known, a friend who has lifted religiously since college, has been a strict vegan for most of his life.

Ill just tell you one thing, you have got to eat meat at least ONCE in your life. So you actually KNOW what your not eating. Its like the "dont diss it until youve tried it" thing.

i don't even remember that thread...



About PETA and how they compared certain animal treatment to the Holocaust?

http://www.fscked.co.uk/wysnuu/xz.jpg
Bring it on, burger-boy. My special mushroom powers will pwn j00!

http://interwaryears.8m.net/lenin.jpg

You asked for it, long haired un-shaven capitalist dog! Komrades, ATTTTAAACCCK!!

About PETA and how they compared certain animal treatment to the Holocaust?
well, i vaguely remember that one. i don't remember my contribution to it.

i dunno, i generally don't give a rat's ass what other people want to eat so long as they don't sit there and tell me what to eat.

well, i vaguely remember that one. i don't remember my contribution to it.

i dunno, i generally don't give a rat's ass what other people want to eat so long as they don't sit there and tell me what to eat.



You disagreed with me, as did many. I was pretty harsh back then :D.

i wasn't responding to your post.

i was responding to the guy who is in bio and thus acts like he's a nutrition expert.

I know.

I just dont want people to think i did (which, surprisingly, they do.)

Ill just tell you one thing, you have got to eat meat at least ONCE in your life. So you actually KNOW what your not eating. Its like the "dont diss it until youve tried it" thing.

Surely the same could be said for incest or, indeed, morris dancing? - but I doubt you would be as quick to advocate either of these.

Neither, just an inability to enjoy good food.

I think I speak for most omnivores to the vegetarians,

Go ahead and eat all the vegies you want, live how you want, just stop disturbing us, if we want listen how good vegies are and how bad meat are, we would have listen, if not, for God sakes stop pushing it into our faces calling us murderers and stuff.

We eat what we want to eat, you eat what you want to eat. Everybodies happy right?

*I forsee someone starts arguing back to me "What about the cute little lamb? Why can't IT be happy"?"

And it goes on and on and on and on.

Surely the same could be said for incest or, indeed, morris dancing? - but I doubt you would be as quick to advocate either of these.

Listen, im talking about RESONABLE things.

Now, ive tried mroe than alot of you guys. Ive tried 50 bagillion kinds of pakistani food(obviously an exxageration), ive done all these differenct classes(debate, enriched writing), ive learned to speak new languages(Ke Xopa Hombre!), NOT TO MENTION Ive lived in Pakistan, The U.S., Bangladesh, Panama, ZImbabwe, and Mozambique. And ive done all these things there that most of you would never try. Such as bug eating. Or knife looking-atting. Or curry-cooking. Or Safariing. Or talking a stroll through the rainforest.

So i've tried ALOT more than most of you guys. The most you can do is try a chicken nugget. Its about the size of your thumb and you can eatit in one bite. Its not that much to ask.

I think I speak for most omnivores to the vegetarians,

Go ahead and eat all the vegies you want, live how you want, just stop disturbing us, if we want listen how good vegies are and how bad meat are, we would have listen, if not, for God sakes stop pushing it into our faces calling us murderers and stuff.

We eat what we want to eat, you eat what you want to eat. Everybodies happy right?

*I forsee someone starts arguing back to me "What about the cute little lamb? Why can't IT be happy"?"

And it goes on and on and on and on.

You see, those are the hippy vegetarians who dont eat meat because "it hurts the poor wittle aminals."(yes, i mispelt the last two words on PURPOSE.). I have nothing against people who dont for religious reasons(Muslims=no eat pork. Hindus= no eat cow, rat, tiger, etc.), or health reasons (EG: when you eat meat you puke because of alergies), but just because it hurts the animals?

What would Che think?

I agree with the notion that people can pretty much do whatever they want on this issue, just don't force me to take part in being a vegan, these kids when i went to high school made us do that for a day, it's sickening. I like meat good source of protein and fats, it's definitely not unhealthy being vegan, but it does require a lot of planning to get in the fats and proteins that the body needs. If you are happy not eating meat don't, personally i think a lot of it stems from people not knowing how to cook well.

I'd like to know why vegetarians think that eating only vegetables is more moral. Do they not know about the habitats destroyed for land to plant crops on, the environmental damage caused by pesticides, etc? If we all stopped eating meat, it would get worse. Agriculture causes massive environmental damage that isn't just limited to cows farting. Vegetarianism kills poor innocent little animals too. Only these are wild animals that aren't even intended for eating, so instead of killing animals for a specific purpose, like burgers, they're just mowing down innocent bystanders to get their meat-free diet.

i cant complain about vegans who do it for health reasons.but hey if they had there way in the begging we would be herbavores,which means we would be more like sheep or cows(ie complete idiots).because guess what,predators are stronger,faster and smarter.they gotta be they dont prey on something that cant fight back.we may not be the strongest,or the fastest.but were the smartest so clearly meat done us gooooooodddd.

naw i complain about the vegans who do it for "moral reasons",my response to them.throw them with a hungry pack of wolves.watch them squeel and die.animals would love to eat you,do them and yourself the same courtasey.
or i turn to plants a alive too damnit,so your just protecting the cuddly bunnys.

now im going back to MY diet,which is 80% meat and animal products.

How is that selfish. it's perfectly healthy if done properly and many have done so. Even the Americian Dietetic Association and others agree. it seems to me hardly a selfish thing not to harm other living beings and support compassion which unfortunatly is missing in our world wether for humans or non-humans.


Oh, and a pregneant vegan mother is selfish, IMHO. Just my two cents.

And 70% of the grains in the US are grown for feed for animals raised for slaughter. A vegetarian diet uses less resources then a meat-centered one.

I'd like to know why vegetarians think that eating only vegetables is more moral. Do they not know about the habitats destroyed for land to plant crops on, the environmental damage caused by pesticides, etc? If we all stopped eating meat, it would get worse. Agriculture causes massive environmental damage that isn't just limited to cows farting. Vegetarianism kills poor innocent little animals too. Only these are wild animals that aren't even intended for eating, so instead of killing animals for a specific purpose, like burgers, they're just mowing down innocent bystanders to get their meat-free diet.

And 70% of the grains in the US are grown for feed for animals raised for slaughter. A vegetarian diet uses less resources then a meat-centered one.

Regardless, unless you can photosynthesise, whatever you eat is going to have been produced at the cost of something's life, whether it's cows, field mice, locusts or cucumbers.

Previously I was called a "she" by some meat- eaters. I just want to clear up that I am most definately a HE. Im getting so tired of your vegetarian stereotypes. That were all just a bunch of girls crying over "wittle aminals".

I don’t care what vegetarians do, so long as they don’t get preachy about it. People don’t have to eat the recommended amount each day to stay healthy. That is until they get older. There comes a time in everybody’s life, if they are allowed to live long enough that is, when their catabolic rate starts to overcome their anabolic rate. This is when becomes more important to maintain a healthy, nutritionally balanced diet. Except when eating disorders are concerned. Eating disorders are never healthy. Speaking of which, people with bulimia piss me off more than most vegetarians have ever managed to do. Fucking food wasters. They should all drown in a mixture of the blood of the animals that they kill and the vomit that they excrete.

So what is the healthy diet? Well physiologically speaking the human diet should consist of mostly vegetable matter. However our bodies aren’t predominantly designed to have a purely herbivorous diet. Our intestine is a little too small, our cecum is way too small, we lack the ability to digest cellulose and we don’t have any microorganisms in our body that can break down the cellulose for us. That being said though humans are closer to being natural herbivores than they, er uh we are to being carnivores. Which is why in many cases vegetarians are in better health than non vegetarians. Because non vegetarians can have a tendency to eat more meat than our body is designed to handle. Technically humans aren’t designed to be hunters. We’re better designed to reach and grab animals that are small like chameleons, iguanas, and other small animals that are easy to catch. Which typically wouldn’t make up much of our diet anyways.

Technically humans aren’t designed to be hunters. We’re better designed to reach and grab animals that are small like chameleons, iguanas, and other small animals that are easy to catch. Which typically wouldn’t make up much of our diet anyways.

That would only hold true if humans were solitary creatures.

What we are technically designed for is cooperation and tool-use. Which is THE most efficient way of catching meat in nature. Nothing else even comes close to us as predators, so to claim we aren't designed for it is a bit... well, inaccurate. Compare a pride of lions and a posse of gun-toting rednecks, and see who can catch more game in a week.

That would only hold true if humans were solitary creatures.

What we are technically designed for is cooperation and tool-use. Which is THE most efficient way of catching meat in nature. Nothing else even comes close to us as predators, so to claim we aren't designed for it is a bit... well, inaccurate. Compare a pride of lions and a posse of gun-toting rednecks, and see who can catch more game in a week.
Bah, what is the worth of a man without his tools? Only because we can use tools are we able to overcome our other major disadvantages. I was talking about the days before our ancestors ever started using tools.

Is anyone else here learning chinese. I love how they express the word for meat! They don't try to hide, like in western culture, that it really is a dead animal.
meat= rou (flesh)
beef= niu rou (cow flesh)
chicken= ji rou (chicken flesh)
duck= ya rou (duck flesh)
pork= zhu rou (pig flesh)
mutton= yang rou (lamb flesh)

Bah, what is the worth of a man without his tools? Only because we can use tools are we able to overcome our other major disadvantages. I was talking about the days before our ancestors ever started using tools.

I really don't understand the way people dismiss tool use as if it's something inconsequential and unnatural. It is a perfectly natural trait, just one in which humans have excelled to such a ridiculous extent that there is no longer anything to compare us to. All animals have a trait on which they rely, and we are no different in that respect. What would an eagle be without its wings?

As for pre-tool use, that would be way before the evolution of Homo Sapiens, so it's not very relevant.

I really don't understand the way people dismiss tool use as if it's something inconsequential and unnatural. It is a perfectly natural trait, just one in which humans have excelled to such a ridiculous extent that there is no longer anything to compare us to. All animals have a trait on which they rely, and we are no different in that respect. What would an eagle be without its wings?
Because people have become so accustomed to using tools that most wouldn’t know what to do if they suddenly didn’t have any tools to use. Most people don't have a concept of what is safe to eat, if they were to find themselves in such a situation, unless it is prepackaged for them.

Because people have become so accustomed to using tools that most wouldn’t know what to do if they suddenly didn’t have any tools to use. Most people don't have a concept of what is safe to eat unless it is prepackaged for them.

But that is irrelevant, because the human method of survival, being based on a cooperative society, does not require individual members to know how to do these things. It is like the soldier ants whose physiology is so specialised for one task, that they require the workers to feed them or they would starve. That is how communities work; nobody can do every task from food production to accountancy to jet design, so individuals specialise.

A note to those who would dismiss veganism as unnatural:
It is only as unnatural as domesticating animals and using tools to catch them. Everything is natural, but some things take longer to come about than others.

Why are bunnies mentioned at least 4 times in this thread?! Most people who eat meat don't eat rabbits!
Anyways, I too am fed up with people like my granddad trying to shove meat down my throat when I hate the taste of it! I don't force him to eat horse sh*t every time he comes to my house! grrr!!!
*goes back to watching her bunnies running round the room*

Oh and FYI, apes and the likes use tools too! Not only humans...

HI. I am a vegan, everyone keeps telling me that I am OCD. Do you think that it is opsessive or compassionate to be a vegan? Should we draw a line in altruistic thinking? When does empathy go to far? Can it be taken too far?

Personally I think all vegans are hippocrites. They campaign about cruelty to animals, but give no thought to how the animals would behave if the tables were turned. Would a lion have qualms about eating us if he was in our situation? I think not. Anyway, by the sounds of it, you are nowhere near as vegan as some I have forummed with. One had the RSPCA number PROGRAMMED INTO HER MOBILE PHONE.

Anyways, I too am fed up with people like my granddad trying to shove meat down my throat when I hate the taste of it! I don't force him to eat horse sh*t every time he comes to my house! grrr!!!
*goes back to watching her bunnies running round the room*

Maybe you should try forcing him to eat horsecrap. Make him see what he's doing to you.

Why are bunnies mentioned at least 4 times in this thread?! Most people who eat meat don't eat rabbits!

Why not? How many of you have actually tried rabbit? It's quite tasty.

Is anyone else here learning chinese. I love how they express the word for meat! They don't try to hide, like in western culture, that it really is a dead animal.
meat= rou (flesh)
beef= niu rou (cow flesh)
chicken= ji rou (chicken flesh)
duck= ya rou (duck flesh)
pork= zhu rou (pig flesh)
mutton= yang rou (lamb flesh)



Everyone knows that when you're eating a piece of steak, you're eating a dead cow. It's not rocket science.

But that is irrelevant, because the human method of survival, being based on a cooperative society, does not require individual members to know how to do these things. It is like the soldier ants whose physiology is so specialised for one task, that they require the workers to feed them or they would starve. That is how communities work; nobody can do every task from food production to accountancy to jet design, so individuals specialise.
Soldier ants are required for the survival of the ant colony. We can live without any of the tools that we have made. But you have pulled me away from what I was originally trying to say. I was referring to the evolution of humans and trying to explain the types of foods that our ancestors would have eaten which would make up the basis of our current anatomy and physiology. Therefore determining what our current diet should ideally consist of. You were the one who brought up gun toting rednecks. Which had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Unless you would care to explain why you think that it does.

I love how they express the word for meat! They don't try to hide, like in western culture, that it really is a dead animal.

Yes, I can see how when I'm eating, say, leg of lamb, that the name of it misleads me into thinking it's not a dead animal. Curse the etymology of the english language for decieving me into eating meat!

:rolleyes:

I've been vegetarian for years, and find some people who eat meat are rather kidding themselves.
My mother, for example, doesn't like the idea of any animal dying, yet she'll happily eat meat from a supermarket.
People just don't like to see a face on their meal, I guess.
If you showed someone a cow, and said 'You'll be eating this animal later on tonight' would they eat the evening meal? I'd think a good number of people wouldn't.

I've been vegetarian for years, and find some people who eat meat are rather kidding themselves.
My mother, for example, doesn't like the idea of any animal dying, yet she'll happily eat meat from a supermarket.
People just don't like to see a face on their meal, I guess.
If you showed someone a cow, and said 'You'll be eating this animal later on tonight' would they eat the evening meal? I'd think a good number of people wouldn't.



I have a problem with endangered animals dieing and being made into rugs or piano keys but animals like cows, chickens, etc that there are thousands of and some people make their lively hood based on whether or not they can sell them, I have no problem with eating those creatures.

Soldier ants are required for the survival of the ant colony.

The particualr variety of ants on the path outside my house don't appear to have a soldier strain. Therefore, they aren't required for the survival of an ant colony. Only those particular ant species that have adapted to a survival method which requires them, just as humans have adapted to a survival method in which individual members specialise to provide a particular service to the community, and rely on others for their basic needs.

We can live without any of the tools that we have made.

If you happen to live in an orchard, perhaps. Even a stick is a tool; life without any tools of any variety is next to impossible for humans, because we have adapted to use tools to solve our problems. A tool-free lifestyle would be short, brutal, dull, and spent perpetually on the edge of starvation.

But you have pulled me away from what I was originally trying to say. I was referring to the evolution of humans and trying to explain the types of foods that our ancestors would have eaten which would make up the basis of our current anatomy and physiology. Therefore determining what our current diet should ideally consist of. You were the one who brought up gun toting rednecks. Which had absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Unless you would care to explain why you think that it does.

I think it's quite clear from the context in which it was written; a statement claiming that humans are nature's most efficient predator, followed by an example comparing human hunters to a randomly selected social predatory species. You claimed that humans are technically adapted only for catching lizards, and are poor hunters. I pointed out that humans are technically adapted for using tools to catch anything they feel like eating, and are nature's greatest hunters. We simply wouldn't have developed such a complex and powerful survival mechanism if it was totally unnecessary, and all our survival needs could be met by fruit trees. Anyway, lizards are damn near impossible to catch.

In any case, what our diet should ideally consist of is determined by current conditions, not the conditions experienced by some pre-homo sapiens hominid 3 million years ago.

A note to those who would dismiss veganism as unnatural:
It is only as unnatural as domesticating animals and using tools to catch them. Everything is natural, but some things take longer to come about than others.
Fine when humans stop having eyes in the front of their head for focused depth perception and when they lose the incissors that are designed in nature to tear at flesh. I will call veganism natural.
However since we are still currently biological omnivores I refuse to call veganism natural. It is not a natural behavior, tool use is.
Tool use is found in hundreds of species.
We are biologically developed to eat flesh, we have predatory vision, flesh tearing front teeth, and a disgestive system designed for meat and plant matter.
I dont think there is anything wrong with making a decision not to meat, good for you. Most people eat it excess anyway.
However it is a fallacy to claim it is unnatural to eat meat, or that it is uncompassionate.
Compassion has nothing to do with it, it is simply biology.
The wolf does not lement the deer, the deer does not hate the wolf.

driving cars is unnatural. Living in homes. basically if you want natural one has to go to living to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I could also say things like slavery are natural as many societies have practiced them. As for eating meat it may not be "unnatural" but it certainly is uncompassionate given their is no reason we need to do so to survive. Especially when done on the level of factory farms.

Fine when humans stop having eyes in the front of their head for focused depth perception and when they lose the incissors that are designed in nature to tear at flesh. I will call veganism natural.
However since we are still currently biological omnivores I refuse to call veganism natural. It is not a natural behavior, tool use is.
Tool use is found in hundreds of species.
We are biologically developed to eat flesh, we have predatory vision, flesh tearing front teeth, and a disgestive system designed for meat and plant matter.
I dont think there is anything wrong with making a decision not to meat, good for you. Most people eat it excess anyway.
However it is a fallacy to claim it is unnatural to eat meat, or that it is uncompassionate.
Compassion has nothing to do with it, it is simply biology.
The wolf does not lement the deer, the deer does not hate the wolf.

If you happen to live in an orchard, perhaps. Even a stick is a tool; life without any tools of any variety is next to impossible for humans, because we have adapted to use tools to solve our problems. A tool-free lifestyle would be short, brutal, dull, and spent perpetually on the edge of starvation.
A stick is a tool not human made. Many animals spend many parts of their lives on the brink of starvation. That and I think that he was just saying that tools are merely unnatural. I don't think that he was necessarily saying that tools shouldn't be used. I think what he was trying to say that that just because we can use tools, that shouldn't be a major deciding factor as to what we can eat. Many animals use tools in some instances for getting at food. But it is hardly, if ever, used to obtain the primary food source. Then again humans use tools on just about everything, so they can be considered the exception.

A stick is a tool not human made.

That makes no difference at all. A tool isn't defined by how it is made, it is defined by how it is used; the act of using a stick to poke an ant hill means you have made an ant hill poker, even if you only made it out of a stick. Tools are abstract concepts as well as physical objects. Tool use is a perfectly natural survival trait; in fact, there is, when it comes down to it, no such thing as unnatural. Except maybe Donald Trump's hair.

I was just wandering around a site on Sikhism, and I found this quotation from one of their holy books which I thought might be appropriate to this thread:

"Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. They don't understand truth nor do they meditate on it. Who can define what is meat and what is plant? Who knows where the sin lies, being a vegetarian or a non vegetarian?" (Guru Nanak, Var Malar)

driving cars is unnatural. Living in homes. basically if you want natural one has to go to living to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. I could also say things like slavery are natural as many societies have practiced them. As for eating meat it may not be "unnatural" but it certainly is uncompassionate given their is no reason we need to do so to survive. Especially when done on the level of factory farms.
Typical emotional response against biological and scientific fact.
Compassion has nothing to do with it, human are omnivores-fact.
We are designed to eat meat-fact.
We are not designed to eat just plants-fact.
A vegan lifestyle is just as healthy as an omnivorous one-fallacy.
The eating of flesh is uncompassionate-fallacy.
Nature does not suffer copassion in the PETA, green peace , selfserving way you would have mankind subscribe to.


As far as tool use goes.
Tool:n. a device that aids in accomplishing a specific task.
Animals that use tools: Egyptian Vultures use rocks to crack open eggs.
The Woodpecker Finch of the Galapagos islands uses sticks to pry grubs from tree bark.
Green Herons use small objects as bait to lure fish to the surfae of the water.
Hooded Monkeys have been observed fashioning task specific tools out of wood.
Chimps use tools all the time, even to hunt birds--yes chimps eat meat.

I respect vegetarians actually for there self control to not eat meat but we they start saying that I should eat meat or shouldn't be allowed to eat me thats when I hate them. My diet consists mostly of meat with occasional vegetables and fruits.

Compassion has everything to do it

We have no need to eat meat-fact
Animals suffer just as we suffer-fact
Vegans are at least as healthy if not healthier then meat-eaters-fact

basically the obnly arguement you make is it is the status quo theirfore natural. The same arguement which could have been made in favor of slavery and many other things.


Typical emotional response against biological and scientific fact.
Compassion has nothing to do with it, human are omnivores-fact.
We are designed to eat meat-fact.
We are not designed to eat just plants-fact.
A vegan lifestyle is just as healthy as an omnivorous one-fallacy.
The eating of flesh is uncompassionate-fallacy.
Nature does not suffer copassion in the PETA, green peace , selfserving way you would have mankind subscribe to.


As far as tool use goes.
Tool:n. a device that aids in accomplishing a specific task.
Animals that use tools: Egyptian Vultures use rocks to crack open eggs.
The Woodpecker Finch of the Galapagos islands uses sticks to pry grubs from tree bark.
Green Herons use small objects as bait to lure fish to the surfae of the water.
Hooded Monkeys have been observed fashioning task specific tools out of wood.
Chimps use tools all the time, even to hunt birds--yes chimps eat meat.

That makes no difference at all. A tool isn't defined by how it is made, it is defined by how it is used; the act of using a stick to poke an ant hill means you have made an ant hill poker, even if you only made it out of a stick. Tools are abstract concepts as well as physical objects. Tool use is a perfectly natural survival trait; in fact, there is, when it comes down to it, no such thing as unnatural. Except maybe Donald Trump's hair.
Actually considering the context in which he was speaking it does matter. After all he did say "We can live without any of the tools that we have made." A stick is a tool of opportunity. You can find them laying around just about anywhere where there are trees. You don't make it into a tool, you use it as a tool. Unless you've altered its appearance in which case you've made it into something. Afterwards though it becomes a stick again. A hammer is a hammer no matter what. Of course you could always use a hammer as something other than a hammer, but in the end it's still a hammer made up of metal and wood, or whatever other material that is chosen to make the hammer.

Actually considering the context in which he was speaking it does matter. After all he did say "We can live without any of the tools that we have made." A stick is a tool of opportunity. You can find them laying around just about anywhere where there are trees. You don't make it into a tool, you use it as a tool.

By using it as a tool, you make it into a tool. A stick lying around on the floor is just a stick. A stick being used for a purpose is a tool. It isn't any special property of the object that makes it a tool or not, it's the fact that a human being, with the capacity to understand how an object can be used and manipulated to achieve a purpose, is using it as a tool.

If you left a hammer on mars, it'd be a hammer alright, but with nobody to use it, it wouldn't really be a tool. It'd just be a wood-and-metal object.



Animals suffer just as we suffer-fact

Prove it. Having pain responses doesn't mean that animals suffer as we do. Their emotional makeup is likely entirely different to ours.

Their emotional makeup may be different but it is present to the same degree. Animals have been shown to expreience everything from fear to love to anger and many other things(see the book When Elephants Weep by Jeffery masson for examples) as well as having a similarly designed central nervous system to ours. The fact is they are more alike then different.


Prove it. Having pain responses doesn't mean that animals suffer as we do. Their emotional makeup is likely entirely different to ours.

so much bullshit here, not worth quoting..

Killing plants is just as bad as killing animals? Since when is a plant able to suffer? Animals are able to suffer, test it yourself (yes you are an animal too). Animals suffer pain, more intelligent animals (pigs, apes, humans) suffer mentally. Recently they proved that fish can suffer from stress (don't ask me how they found that out ;))

That bullshit maddox article: "murdering 10 people is just as bad as murdering 20 people" LOL! If you can prevent some suffering, it's better to go for it then don't even try. I don't claim to cause no suffering at all (i have leather shoes for example), but i do what i can.

The lightning star:
you see, those are the hippy vegetarians who dont eat meat because "it hurts the poor little aminals".

so lame to just call people hippies. do i call you anything?

Meat=corpse. I don't like eating corpses, but if you do go ahead.

Their emotional makeup may be different but it is present to the same degree.

Not necessarily. What makes you think they rationalise their relationships or desires in anywhere near as complex a fashion as we do? Just because their behaviour appears superficially similar to human behaviour does not mean that the reasoning behind it is the same. Kinda like my old favourite, Searle's Chinese Room Argument.

Also, judging all animals by one example isn't particularly scientific. Elephants may mourn a lost family member, but that doesn't mean that cows do. I don't eat elephants, anyway.

The book covers all types of animals. Not simply Elephants.

And what makes you think they do so differently. They have central nervous systems very similar to ours. I think Occam's razor takes affect here. Basically the assumption they don't seems to be based on human arrogence more then actual scientific fact.



Not necessarily. What makes you think they rationalise their relationships or desires in anywhere near as complex a fashion as we do? Just because their behaviour appears superficially similar to human behaviour does not mean that the reasoning behind it is the same. Kinda like my old favourite, Searle's Chinese Room Argument.

Also, judging all animals by one example isn't particularly scientific. Elephants may mourn a lost family member, but that doesn't mean that cows do. I don't eat elephants, anyway.

It's food that is eating grass, not me.

The book covers all types of animals. Not simply Elephants.

And what makes you think they do so differently. They have central nervous systems very similar to ours. I think Occam's razor takes affect here. Basically the assumption they don't seems to be based on human arrogence more then actual scientific fact.

Their central nervous systems might be similar, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Also, if you want to use Occam's razor, explain exactly what assumptions are superfluous in explicit terms. I myself don't see where it is applicable.

The human brain is not the same as a cow brain, therefore they operate differently. You might as well claim that, because an intel 80386 and a 5Ghz Athlon are built on the same architecture, they are capable of running the same software. Good luck trying to run Doom 3 on a 386.

They may not be the same but the beings are just as capible of suffering then we are. Size of brain is not relevent. They can suffer just as we can as well as feel other emotions. That is the point and i don't think their can be any dispute scientifically.

They live for their own lives just as we do. To cause pain to another for no reason is wrong just as it would be wrong to cause pain to another human who is less intelligent then you or assume their lives are of lesser value.


Their central nervous systems might be similar, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Also, if you want to use Occam's razor, explain exactly what assumptions are superfluous in explicit terms. I myself don't see where it is applicable.

The human brain is not the same as a cow brain, therefore they operate differently. You might as well claim that, because an intel 80386 and a 5Ghz Athlon are built on the same architecture, they are capable of running the same software. Good luck trying to run Doom 3 on a 386.

They may not be the same but the beings are just as capible of suffering then we are. Size of brain is not relevent. They can suffer just as we can as well as feel other emotions. That is the point and i don't think their can be any dispute scientifically.

Well, in that case we disagree. Size, function, complexity, and general capability of the brain is entirely relevant; in fact, it is the only thing of relevance. If their brain is not sufficiently complex, or structured in the same fashion (i.e. conditioned for complex social interaction, or introspection) to produce the kind of thoughts that humans feel with regards to suffering, then they do not suffer the same. It is that simple.

They live for their own lives just as we do. To cause pain to another for no reason is wrong just as it would be wrong to cause pain to another human who is less intelligent then you or assume their lives are of lesser value.

What gives a life value? What is a life? It can't have great value just because. Fundamentally, a living creature is just a self-perpetuating system, and is of no real significance unless you bring religion into it. However, more complex systems, such as humans and various others, have sufficiently complicated brains to be able to formulate the necessary thoughts to attach significance to themselves and their actions. However, it takes a pretty complex neural network to be able to construct that kind of thinking, and not all animals have brains that complex. I really don't believe that, when a cow is standing there in a field munching grass, there is anything going on in its head at all. Maybe it reacts to things like someone driving a tractor at it, but there's nothing special about that; you could build a robot to do that. Why should I attach significance to the cow? What difference does it make if that cow ceases to exist? What is it doing that needs preserving?

Can you prove that a cow actually suffers when pain is applied to it, or does it simply react instinctively without understanding either the stimulus it recieves or the action it performs, like a computer?

Even the most dull-witted of people forms complex relationships with other people, and has hopes and aspirations, and thinks about abstract things. The cow? I don't think so.

Dang, I'm sorry I saw this thread so late - I have so much to say about all the stupid things I read in this post.

Being vegan doesn't make you OCD as being OCD doesn't make you vegan. I have OCD, I love to eat dead animals.

Health is a concern for vegans, especially for pregnancies. Vegans often have a euphoric feeling that makes them feel "very good" and it leads them to believe; that because they feel this way, it means they are healthy.

I think wanting to be compassionate for animals is great, but to tell people that meat is harmful to human beings is a lie. Meat does not sit in your colon; that lie is generally enforced by those who give "colonics".

The myth that we do not need meat to survive is commonly used by vegans, but there is a reason that meat, poultery, fish, and dairy products are part of our food groups. Human beings mostly used vegetables for the ruffage.

The myth of meat being unhealthy comes from the knowledge that our cattle are being pumped full of chemicals. And the myths comes from fanatics like those with PETA.

Most vegans probably don't know that because they do not eat meat it affects their health. Most vegans have trouble with fertility (male & female), young women have trouble with menstrual cycles, some can not become pregnant because of their diet. I know alot of you will laugh, but just ask your doctor instead of a vegetarian.

Human beings are a class of "predators", because our eyes focus forward just like all meat eating hunters do. Our teeth is the other thing; human beings have teeth which are designed to tear flesh - if our teeth were just to eat vegetation, we wouldn't have incisors, canines, and jagged molars.

We must eat a variety of foods to maintain a healthy body.

Most vegetarians I know simply do not like the taste of meat, but it makes
me wonder why they'll eat all the pepperonies from my pizza and enjoy that.

Actually by eating meat we slowly introduce poison into our body. Our intestines are too long to get the meat out of our body before it starts rotting. I am more worried about the pregnant omnivore and her poisoned baby. And Im getting so tired of hearing people say that they "cant live without meat..." because its really not that hard, especially when you think about all that happened to the animal before you selfishly devour its flesh.

This is the sort of absurdity that annoys me with Vegan's.
There's a balance of bacteria in the digestive tract. Bacteria may be active but it's not accurate to describe it as rotting.

Meat eating is not a result of artificial city living. Humans began eating meat before we even became our current species. If anything city living has caused the protien poor, vegetable heavy, diet because animal husbandry becomes difficult in an urban environment.

It is possible to find all of the nutrients that we know of that naturally occur in a meat eating diet, such as B12 and protien, but it takes a lot of work and requires access to foods from all over the world. That only becomes possible in a very modern society, and the amount of walnuts needed to replace the essential fatty acids present in a meat diet doesn't exist in the whole world. Don't worry about pregnant women eating meat, they've been doing it for the last 200,000 years and it hasn't brought the human race low yet.
Worry about the pregnant woman who thinks that fruit juice and bean curd are a replacement for a piece of fish.

This article is a bit dry, but it's very thorough and pretty much puts the lie to claims that an omnivorous diet is harmful or unnatural to humans.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml

Their central nervous systems might be similar, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Also, if you want to use Occam's razor, explain exactly what assumptions are superfluous in explicit terms. I myself don't see where it is applicable.

The human brain is not the same as a cow brain, therefore they operate differently. You might as well claim that, because an intel 80386 and a 5Ghz Athlon are built on the same architecture, they are capable of running the same software. Good luck trying to run Doom 3 on a 386.

Boy, you really picked the wrong analogy there.

See, Doom3 is a very high level game. Like the higher-level functions of the human brain. Of course a cow can't program in C.

However, every PC since the 8088 and upwards is capable of interfacing with devices, of telling the time, and of carrying out basic self-checks. It's built into the BIOS code - the low-level machine code that controls the Basic Input/Output System. That's a bit like the brain stem, I would guess, or the hypothalmus that controls the "animal" part of us, such as emotions. So you could argue that every animal from the cow up to us humans is capable of emotion, just like us, and of feeling stress or unhappiness, just like us.

Of course if you spent some time looking at animals or studying their ways you'd know that they are pretty much driven by emotions, of the pure unfettered variety, uninhibited by such human devices as abstract reasoning. You'd also know that they are capable of rudimentary forms of social behaviour, and some even have some very basic reasoning ability. A cat looking in a mirror sees a reflection, whereas other less intelligent animals would see another animal, for example.

So please, eat meat all you like, but don't try to kid yourself into thinking that the animals you kill are just brainless computers.

I understand why some people are Vegans. I thought about becoming one, but shugged it off.

Eating meat is totally natural. Some people call it "Animal Cruelty" Then should wolves and bears go to jail?

If you dont like meat fine, but if you eat meat it doesnt mean your a heartless beast devoring other animals flesh for pleasure. It means your an obnivore.

ok, meat is not posion that is total bull. Humans have eaten meat since the dawn of time, if meat was poisening us, humans would not be successful.

IN the time of moses and those guys they ate WAY WAY WAY WAY more meat and vegans where UNHEARD OF, the normal life span was LONGER than today's! Eating meat just makes you get fat quicker, i guess that COULD kill you at one point.

Of course if you spent some time looking at animals or studying their ways you'd know that they are pretty much driven by emotions, of the pure unfettered variety, uninhibited by such human devices as abstract reasoning.

If I looked at them through rose-tinted glasses of anthropomorphism, maybe. Emotion is not the same as instinct; without reason, emotion means nothing. If an animal does not understand why it is angry or horny or whatever, then it doesn't matter what emotion it is experiencing; it isn't an emotion then, it is just a hormonal state caused by instinctive reaction. You have to be able to think about it for it to have any meaning; the meaning of anything is only what you attach to it, and if you are unable to attach meaning to anything, then... er... everything is meaningless, I guess.

I'm about as empathic as seaweed. Maybe that is why I view things differently. I don't think your point is particularly objective, since it would seem to be based on an emotional interpretation (and emotion is horribly undefined at the moment), but I'm tired and I'm pretty sure my argument is ropey as hell.

In any case, I certainly don't kid myself; I just don't care, really. As far as I'm concerned, compassion is just a social survival mechanism - I see no need to extend it to other species.

HI. I am a vegan, everyone keeps telling me that I am OCD. Do you think that it is opsessive or compassionate to be a vegan? Should we draw a line in altruistic thinking? When does empathy go to far? Can it be taken too far?
I think it can. Empathy beyond reason is always a bad thing. What I also think is bad, however, is thinking that nature is equal, or even somehow superior to humans. It isn't. Nature is meant to be a slave to humanity. Like any slave, it turns on us when abused. But that doesn't mean that we can't be firm with it. Denying mastery of nature, such as veganism, is not just a denial of power, but morally wrong. We have an obligation to improve humanity, and enslaving nature can. Humans advanced greatly after the advent of farming. But vegans, and their environmentalists thinking, tries to turn progress back. It'd be silly, of course, to assume that any vegan wants the abolition of farming, but other progress with nature would be reversed.

what separates humans from other animals is free will. We, unlike the lion, can choose not to murder or support the death of our prey. My choice is not to kill. I don't know what yours is, but I hope you believe in it with all your mind.

BTW, meat is actually more likely, due to lax federal restrictions, to contain infected and dangerous bacterially contaminated substances, including many known carcinogens. So meat, in our world, is very, very deadly. Especially fast food.

I think it can. Empathy beyond reason is always a bad thing. What I also think is bad, however, is thinking that nature is equal, or even somehow superior to humans. It isn't. Nature is meant to be a slave to humanity. Like any slave, it turns on us when abused. But that doesn't mean that we can't be firm with it. Denying mastery of nature, such as veganism, is not just a denial of power, but morally wrong. We have an obligation to improve humanity, and enslaving nature can. Humans advanced greatly after the advent of farming. But vegans, and their environmentalists thinking, tries to turn progress back. It'd be silly, of course, to assume that any vegan wants the abolition of farming, but other progress with nature would be reversed.

We are not superior or inferior to "nature". We are a part of it. We are natural. As we progress, we will, naturally, become more powerful. We will be able to exert greater control over our environment. To claim superiority or inferiority to nature is to look at it completely the wrong way. We are not seperate from the universe, we are one with it - to use a slightly Buddhist phrase.

As we become more powerful, and as we exert our influence over the world in which we live, we will have to face up to the consequences of our actions. It is only natural that our actions will have great effects in this world. We have to face up to the fact that we are gods compared to any other lifeform on this planet. We have the ability to destroy this ball of rock on which we stand at a whim. That is an awesome responsibility, and for the sake of our children and their children, we should realise that we are not seperate or superior to the world in which we live. If those with their fingers on the nuclear buttons around the world were to think themselves as superior to nature, I think we'd all be in deep trouble.

It is not a reversal of progress to consider that what we do with our powers may affect everyone and everything drastically. What this has to do with veganism is anyone's guess, but I think, given opinions like the above, that it is well worth mentioning.

As far as I'm concerned, compassion is just a social survival mechanism - I see no need to extend it to other species. I hope you don't own any pets......
I think it can. Empathy beyond reason is always a bad thing. What I also think is bad, however, is thinking that nature is equal, or even somehow superior to humans. It isn't. Nature is meant to be a slave to humanity. Like any slave, it turns on us when abused. But that doesn't mean that we can't be firm with it. Denying mastery of nature, such as veganism, is not just a denial of power, but morally wrong. We have an obligation to improve humanity, and enslaving nature can. Humans advanced greatly after the advent of farming. But vegans, and their environmentalists thinking, tries to turn progress back. It'd be silly, of course, to assume that any vegan wants the abolition of farming, but other progress with nature would be reversed.The way it stands now, it would be more progressive for humanity to gradually step back from livestock agriculture, because it is one of the major reasons for world hunger. Livestock agriculture has been around for a very long time because it is the unscientific way of making sure we get all the nutrients we need, not because it is progressive. With the development of modern agriculture and dietary science, switching to plant-geared diets would increase efficiency and decrease cost. Much like fuel cells have the potential to out-perform ICEs, plant based diets eliminate the wasteful middleman in energy transfer while being cleaner to boot.

We are not superior or inferior to "nature". We are a part of it. We are natural. As we progress, we will, naturally, become more powerful. We will be able to exert greater control over our environment. To claim superiority or inferiority to nature is to look at it completely the wrong way. We are not seperate from the universe, we are one with it - to use a slightly Buddhist phrase.

As we become more powerful, and as we exert our influence over the world in which we live, we will have to face up to the consequences of our actions. It is only natural that our actions will have great effects in this world. We have to face up to the fact that we are gods compared to any other lifeform on this planet. We have the ability to destroy this ball of rock on which we stand at a whim. That is an awesome responsibility, and for the sake of our children and their children, we should realise that we are not seperate or superior to the world in which we live. If those with their fingers on the nuclear buttons around the world were to think themselves as superior to nature, I think we'd all be in deep trouble.

It is not a reversal of progress to consider that what we do with our powers may affect everyone and everything drastically. What this has to do with veganism is anyone's guess, but I think, given opinions like the above, that it is well worth mentioning.
Vegans want to reverse this progress with nature. You see, as I see it, man has greatly differed from everything in the natural world. Deer nor squirrels are able to build cities, let alone reason, and probably feel emotions. We have outgrown nature because we've evolved beyond it, or God designated us to be, whichever you feel to use.
What we do in regards to nature has little impact on humanity. That is not to say that all environmental problems have no merit. Humans are not yet masters of climate, and we must take care of that. But we are of nature. We have reduced it to purely aesthetic value, but at no cost to us. In fact, we have gained from it: food, medicine, and land. Our conquest has now turned to manipulation with genetics, but it only reinforces our control of it.
Veganism itself I have no problem with. However, vegans often become vegans due to environmentalist views, which tend to deny what we can gain from nature, and what may still be gained.

The way it stands now, it would be more progressive for humanity to gradually step back from livestock agriculture, because it is one of the major reasons for world hunger. Livestock agriculture has been around for a very long time because it is the unscientific way of making sure we get all the nutrients we need, not because it is progressive. With the development of modern agriculture and dietary science, switching to plant-geared diets would increase efficiency and decrease cost. Much like fuel cells have the potential to out-perform ICEs, plant based diets eliminate the wasteful middleman in energy transfer while being cleaner to boot.
But agriculture itself must remain, correct?
And btw, livestock agriculture should still exist. All it means is that it costs more, but even so, that isn't a bad thing. We grow enough food to feed the world 1.5 times, and yet food supplies still grow faster than population. They will continue to grow. Also, meat does have some nutritional value. It is, after all, easier to digest. And humans were also meant to be omnivores.

But agriculture itself must remain, correct?
And btw, livestock agriculture should still exist. All it means is that it costs more, but even so, that isn't a bad thing. We grow enough food to feed the world 1.5 times, and yet food supplies still grow faster than population. They will continue to grow. Also, meat does have some nutritional value. It is, after all, easier to digest. And humans were also meant to be omnivores.

Humans are only "meant to be" omnivores to those who accept the idea of a creator. However whether you accept that idea or not, we are omnivores. Not meant to be, are.

However given that, and given the fact that vegans and vegetarians are not dying en masse, it would seem that our diet is an "either/or", not an "and". We can survive and thrive on a no-meat diet.

So please, less of the "meant to be". It seems that it's people who say that we are "meant to be" something that usually end up being the tyrants, be they vegans, environmentalists, "family values" campaigners, or hard-line carnivorous republicans.

Do as you will. Lead by example. Enjoy your life on a cattle farm, in a church, curled up in bed with your wife, husband, partner, or whatever. Just don't tread on me, deny me my happiness, or tell me that I'm "meant to be" something when I'm not. It's not right, it's not clever, and it doesn't help your argument.

Humans are only "meant to be" omnivores to those who accept the idea of a creator. However whether you accept that idea or not, we are omnivores. Not meant to be, are.

However given that, and given the fact that vegans and vegetarians are not dying en masse, it would seem that our diet is an "either/or", not an "and". We can survive and thrive on a no-meat diet.

So please, less of the "meant to be". It seems that it's people who say that we are "meant to be" something that usually end up being the tyrants, be they vegans, environmentalists, "family values" campaigners, or hard-line carnivorous republicans.

Do as you will. Lead by example. Enjoy your life on a cattle farm, in a church, curled up in bed with your wife, husband, partner, or whatever. Just don't tread on me, deny me my happiness, or tell me that I'm "meant to be" something when I'm not. It's not right, it's not clever, and it doesn't help your argument.
I'm utterly lost. How does the phrase "meant to be" imply a moral absolute. I say that we are "meant to be" because our dental and digestive make up are almost exactly like every other omnivore. Our bodies were designed for this role. I'm not exactly attacking vegans, just the reasons why they are vegans, and their philosophy.

Listen, im talking about RESONABLE things.

Since when was Morris Dancing in the UNREASONABLE column?



So i've tried ALOT more than most of you guys. The most you can do is try a chicken nugget. Its about the size of your thumb and you can eatit in one bite. Its not that much to ask.

I ate meat for 17 years of my life before I decided to turn vegetarian: I have experience of both being an omnivore and being a vegan. What would a chicken nugget mean to me at age 32 that it didn't mean to me at age 17?

IN the time of moses and those guys they ate WAY WAY WAY WAY more meat and vegans where UNHEARD OF, the normal life span was LONGER than today's!

Citation or reference for this claim (other than the ages ascribed to Methusaleh et al. in the Christian Bible)?

I'm utterly lost. How does the phrase "meant to be" imply a moral absolute. I say that we are "meant to be" because our dental and digestive make up are almost exactly like every other omnivore. Our bodies were designed for this role. I'm not exactly attacking vegans, just the reasons why they are vegans, and their philosophy.

Well, apologies for the kneejerk reaction. I'm just a little too used to forum posters saying that humans are "meant to be" something, usually based on what their favourite book has to say about the matter.

So basically you are just assuming that it is different. If say an animal acts to protect it's child why is it simply instinct in animals but quite different in humans. No one so far has produced a logical scientific reason that is the case. Their is no doubt an animal suffers if say hit. Also animals have been seen to produce very complex relationships with each other some even mating for life. To assume that these emotions exist in humans but not in aniumals (despite the fact we are very similar and have evolved from animals) is absurd.

And yes what is the value of life. What is the value of your life and why should it matter if I kill you as "unless we bring religion into it" it is quite meaningless. And your survival mewchanism is just instint. prove me wrong.

The fact is no creature wants to die and will do everything to avoid death. That should tell us something.

As for health vegetarian eating is not only healthy but shows decreased problems in things like heart attacks, cancer, diabetes etc. Not only that it is very good food and quite tasty.

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/index.html

Well, in that case we disagree. Size, function, complexity, and general capability of the brain is entirely relevant; in fact, it is the only thing of relevance. If their brain is not sufficiently complex, or structured in the same fashion (i.e. conditioned for complex social interaction, or introspection) to produce the kind of thoughts that humans feel with regards to suffering, then they do not suffer the same. It is that simple.



What gives a life value? What is a life? It can't have great value just because. Fundamentally, a living creature is just a self-perpetuating system, and is of no real significance unless you bring religion into it. However, more complex systems, such as humans and various others, have sufficiently complicated brains to be able to formulate the necessary thoughts to attach significance to themselves and their actions. However, it takes a pretty complex neural network to be able to construct that kind of thinking, and not all animals have brains that complex. I really don't believe that, when a cow is standing there in a field munching grass, there is anything going on in its head at all. Maybe it reacts to things like someone driving a tractor at it, but there's nothing special about that; you could build a robot to do that. Why should I attach significance to the cow? What difference does it make if that cow ceases to exist? What is it doing that needs preserving?

Can you prove that a cow actually suffers when pain is applied to it, or does it simply react instinctively without understanding either the stimulus it recieves or the action it performs, like a computer?

Even the most dull-witted of people forms complex relationships with other people, and has hopes and aspirations, and thinks about abstract things. The cow? I don't think so.

Save a Cow! Eat a Vegan!

Actually by eating meat we slowly introduce poison into our body. Our intestines are too long to get the meat out of our body before it starts rotting. I am more worried about the pregnant omnivore and her poisoned baby. And Im getting so tired of hearing people say that they "cant live without meat..." because its really not that hard, especially when you think about all that happened to the animal before you selfishly devour its flesh.

Can you point me to scholarly resources that indicate "by eating meat we slowly introduce poinson into our bodies"? JAMA? The Lancet? NEJM?

What poison do we introduce?

Well, apologies for the kneejerk reaction. I'm just a little too used to forum posters saying that humans are "meant to be" something, usually based on what their favourite book has to say about the matter.
Not a problem. I'm not denying that I am a Christian, but I really do believe that, even if one was an athiest, they would believe that, phisiologically, we are meant to be omnivores. Otherwise, apology accepted.

Is anyone else here learning chinese. I love how they express the word for meat! They don't try to hide, like in western culture, that it really is a dead animal.
meat= rou (flesh)
beef= niu rou (cow flesh)
chicken= ji rou (chicken flesh)
duck= ya rou (duck flesh)
pork= zhu rou (pig flesh)
mutton= yang rou (lamb flesh)

You seriously need to buy a dictionary.

Main Entry: meat
Pronunciation: 'mEt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mete, from Old English; akin to Old High German maz food
1 a : FOOD; especially : solid food as distinguished from drink b : the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (as a husk or shell)
2 : animal tissue considered especially as food: a : FLESH 2b b : FLESH 1a; specifically : flesh of domesticated animals
3 archaic : 1MEAL 1; especially : DINNER
4 a : the core of something : HEART b : PITH 2b <a novel with meat>
5 : favorite pursuit or interest
- meat·ed /'mE-t&d/ adjective
- meat·less adjective

Gee, doesn't seem to be hiding it to me.

And we've utterly trashed every arguement you have, and yet all you can do is complain about whether or not we got your gender right?

what separates humans from other animals is free will. We, unlike the lion, can choose not to murder or support the death of our prey. My choice is not to kill. I don't know what yours is, but I hope you believe in it with all your mind.

BTW, meat is actually more likely, due to lax federal restrictions, to contain infected and dangerous bacterially contaminated substances, including many known carcinogens. So meat, in our world, is very, very deadly. Especially fast food.

Ahh, standard vegetarian viewpoint, from my experience. Now let me describe, in terms as least flaming as I can manage, what I hate about it.

-"My choice is not to kill."

First, this immediately identifies the poster as someone who thinks righteously; he is more holy than those who disagree with him. I hate that. Get off your high horse.

Second, it implies that eating meat = killing and not eating meat = not killing.

This is a total fallacy. The animals in question - the ones whose meat we would hypothetically order at a burger joint - were already dead at the time. They don't kill a cow for every burger you order. If you "chose not to kill," that equates exactly to a dead cow gone to waste. No more.

It's denial. Just because you don't "support" the killing of or "murder" food animals, doesn't mean they don't die. You are just as guilty as the guy who watches a rape in the park and doesn't call the police or intervene. (Assuming you consider the killing of animals for food to be like a crime, which the poster does.)

-"My choice is not to kill. I don't know what yours is, but I hope you believe in it with all your mind."

ARRRGH. So wait, even if you think (as you surely must) that I'm morally wrong for eating meat, its still OK to you, morally, as long as I believe in it with all my mind?

Zealotry! Zealotry rewards and respects zealotry. That's what this means. You probably don't have a problem with Bush either, since Bush does as he truly believes.

-"BTW, meat is actually more likely, due to lax federal restrictions, to contain infected and dangerous bacterially contaminated substances, including many known carcinogens"

More likely than what? Than eating soybeans? I guess that's a sign that federal restrictions need to be more enforced and enforceable. NOT a sign that we should all swear off meat eating.

And as well, how does the amount of carcinogens from such meat compared with the amount you get from walking on any street in any city in the US? I bet it's equatable. But you have no problem with streets.

-"So meat, in our world, is very, very deadly"

What a coincidence! Our WORLD is very, very deadly. Apparently, everyone in it dies. Everyone.

Arrrrgh I won't even go into how much I hate vegetarianism as a "way of life."

It's denial. Just because you don't "support" the killing of or "murder" food animals, doesn't mean they don't die.

True or false?: a vegetarian/vegan diet causes less livestock to die than an omnivorous diet.

Previously I was called a "she" by some meat- eaters. I just want to clear up that I am most definately a HE. Im getting so tired of your vegetarian stereotypes. That were all just a bunch of girls crying over "wittle aminals".

I never called you a "she" I said CHE. As in CHE GUEVARA, the communist revolutionary.

He ate meat too.

Save a Cow! Eat a Vegan!

LOL!

Or lets sponser a vegetarian! For every animal they dont eat, we eat THREE! So in the end they kill MORE animals!

I would like to hear some intellegent reasons why people can't give up meat, what would be so hard about it? What would you really be missing?
Wouldnt you be happy to know that you didnt take part in the barbaric practice of animal slaughter and consumption?

I would like to hear some intellegent reasons why people can't give up meat, what would be so hard about it? What would you really be missing?
Wouldnt you be happy to know that you didnt take part in the barbaric practice of animal slaughter and consumption?


Why can't you get it through your head that somepeople just don't want to be vegitarians. Is it really that hard to understand? I don't call you a veggie killer for eating plants so why don't you return the favor. Caling people murders because they don't want be just like what you want them to be its their FUCKING decision. As for the your last question no I wouldn't because I don't see it as a barbaric practice it is just as fuking natural as eating vegitables. People like you who constantly harp on how you are so much beter than we who it meat and that we are a bunch of animal hating murders are the reason somany people are so intolerant of vegitarians. I don't try to force you to eat meat so stop trying to force me not. To paraphraise a common saying stay the fuck out of my kitchen.

Sorry for the rant but someone repeatedly calling me and my relitives barbaric murderers gets on my nerves.

I would like to hear some intellegent reasons why people can't give up meat, what would be so hard about it? What would you really be missing?
Wouldnt you be happy to know that you didnt take part in the barbaric practice of animal slaughter and consumption?
By using that logic, I can reason that it is inhuman to eat anything from the earth, as it is living.

Why can't you get it through your head that somepeople just don't want to be vegitarians. Is it really that hard to understand? I don't call you a veggie killer for eating plants so why don't you return the favor. Caling people murders because they don't want be just like what you want them to be its their FUCKING decision. As for the your last question no I wouldn't because I don't see it as a barbaric practice it is just as fuking natural as eating vegitables. People like you who constantly harp on how you are so much beter than we who it meat and that we are a bunch of animal hating murders are the reason somany people are so intolerant of vegitarians. I don't try to force you to eat meat so stop trying to force me not. To paraphraise a common saying stay the fuck out of my kitchen.

Sorry for the rant but someone repeatedly calling me and my relitives barbaric murderers gets on my nerves.

I know dude, its ok.

And i totally agree with you! In my opinion, if eating Cow is barbaric then so is eating carrots, they're both alive!

well yes maybe to much meat is bad, but it is impossible to live without meat. Many childern of vegans have been born with defects because of the lack of certian nutrients meat provides. SO EAT MEAN!! :headbang:

I ate meat for 17 years of my life before I decided to turn vegetarian: I have experience of both being an omnivore and being a vegan. What would a chicken nugget mean to me at age 32 that it didn't mean to me at age 17?

I meant to people who had never EVER eaten meat in their life. One Chicken nugget. I eat Fruits and veggies all the time, why cant vegetarians who havent eaten meat at least have a CHICKEN NUGGET! It snot like im asking them to behead a cow and eat it raw.

I would like to hear some intellegent reasons why people can't give up meat, what would be so hard about it? What would you really be missing?
Wouldnt you be happy to know that you didnt take part in the barbaric practice of animal slaughter and consumption?

We've posted reasons. We've argued with your points, provided examples, showed you which things you have posted are bullshit, and you respond with this. My advice: Read the topic.

And why are you taking part in the barbaric slaughter and consumption of living things? After all, just calling someone barbaric without any wording on how or why it is barbaric is not an arguement at all. Plus, that can apply to any living thing on Earth.

I think what you want is us to flame you so you can report us to the mods and go home, feeling justified for dealing with people "persecuting you" and that you handled them. Nice try.

Until you have something beyond trying to appeal to our feelings of civilization and posting a bunch of crap that is easily disproven, you have no point.

I've heard some vegans refuse to eat honey, and such like.

Although I don't really have any sympathy for livestock myself, other people clearly do empathise with them enough to consider eating them barbaric.

But stealing off bees? Come on.

Theres a big difference between something being alive and something being able to communicate, feel emotion (not just being programed to like a computer), and to be conscious of their life. All animals, including insects, are able to communicate with others of its kind, feel and convey emotion, and are sentient. Plants may be able to crudely communicate with each other through hormones but this is subconscious, plants do not feel emotions and are not sentient. That is why eating a cow and eating a carrot are definately not the same.

If I am thickheaded for not eating meat, why not you who does eat meat.
By eating meat, sentient beings able to communicate the emotions they feel, you are supporting the killing of animals.

What seperates us biologically from animals is our ability to use the compassion we feel to help stop this killing of animals. Although animals are able to have compassion towards beings of their own species they, unlike humans, are not able to show compassion towards beings of a different species, with exceptions including some primeapes. We should us this compassion we should all be feeling towards animals and direct our energy into making the world a better place, for animals and humans alike.

True or false?: a vegetarian/vegan diet causes less livestock to die than an omnivorous diet.

A vegetarian/vegan diet in what context?

Practiced by none? False.
Practiced by a few? False.
Practiced by more than not? Well, true.

But thats just supply and demand.

But let me ask you something, is fishing considered included in a vegetarian/vegan diet?

Theres a big difference between something being alive and something being able to communicate, feel emotion (not just being programed to like a computer), and to be conscious of their life. All animals, including insects, are able to communicate with others of its kind, feel and convey emotion, and are sentient. Plants may be able to crudely communicate with each other through hormones but this is subconscious, plants do not feel emotions and are not sentient. That is why eating a cow and eating a carrot are definately not the same.

Do you have proof of this? Just because it isn't intelligent in the way humanity is (which leads some to question if humanity really is sentient...), doesn't mean it's not intelligent. We have no proof whether or not plants feel emotions or convey them. Why? We're not plants. That's part of what made humanity be convinced for so long that snakes don't have eyelids (they do): Differing anatomy.

If I am thickheaded for not eating meat, why not you who does eat meat.
By eating meat, sentient beings able to communicate the emotions they feel, you are supporting the killing of animals.

Your very existance supports the killing of animals. There are animals killed and driven off for the plants you eat, animals killed and driven off for the factory your clothes came from, animals killed and driven off for your house and utilities, and even animals killed and driven off for numerous things related to medicine. So, you are supporting the killing of animals as well.

Plus, most animals are not considered sentient. They don't meet the requirements for it.

What seperates us biologically biologically from animals is our ability to use the compassion we feel to help stop this killing of animals.

Unsupported BS. Your very existence has lead to billions of animals dying, if not a number beyond our ability to count. Our ability to use compassion to stop it doesn't mean we should.

Although animals are able to have compassion towards beings of their own species they, unlike humans, are not able to show compassion towards beings of a different species, with exceptions including some primeapes.

Pure bull. My dog is capable of showing compassion to my cat. I've seen her get worried when myself or the cat don't feel well. And that isn't just the projection of emotions. Animals, if raised right, are fully capable of showing as much compassion as their species allows toward those of other species. But that has them raised in artificial environments.

We should us this compassion we should all be feeling towards animals and direct our energy into making the world a better place, for animals and humans alike.

The world as a better place for humans does not mean the world as a better place for animals, and vice versa. Humanity is a large species requiring huge amounts of land to support itself. We can only push animals so far before we start wiping them out. And in order to stop humanity from causing further extinctions, we need to reduce it to a negative growth rate for a few years. People won't do that on their own, so I choose you to decide which people will be aborted every year for the entire human race in order to match this ideal.

About the only places human interests and animal interests coincide is in the absolute basics. Beyond that, we pretty much have nothing in common with them in the interest department, and even in the basics we are very different.

All animals, including insects, are able to communicate with others of its kind, feel and convey emotion, and are sentient.

Most animals are able to communicate in some way with others of its kind. OK.

But feel and convey emotion? Nope. 100% wrong on that one.

And are sentient? Yeah... if you REDEFINE sentient so that it means the opposite of what it means.


Plants may be able to crudely communicate with each other through hormones but this is subconscious, plants do not feel emotions and are not sentient. That is why eating a cow and eating a carrot are definately not the same.

Wait, prove to me that a cow is sentient.

Then I will prove to you that a carrot is just as sentient.

And since when did emotions/sentience translate to "more worthy of life" anyway? They don't.


If I am thickheaded for not eating meat, why not you who does eat meat.

Because I am taking advantage of a resource you shun. If civilization collapses (and there are few if any places on the planet where a human vegetarian diet is possible based on local foodstuffs and pre-industrial transport/logistics/organization) so does the vegetarian diet - as well as many other stupid liberal new age trends.


By eating meat, sentient beings able to communicate the emotions they feel, you are supporting the killing of animals.

Yep. Tasty.


What seperates us biologically from animals is our ability to use the compassion

Uh, no. Remember in Biology ever learning to distinguish different species by compassion? No, you don't. Because you've never taken biology classes.

We should us this compassion we should all be feeling towards animals and direct our energy into making the world a better place, for animals and humans alike.

I agree!

Unfortunately, by preaching annoyingly to people online, you're not "directing" that "energy" into making the world a better place for animals and humans. Mostly, you're just making incoherent pseudoscientific moral lectures amidst new agey kumbaya lingo.

sentient ['sentCH(e)ent] adj. able to percieve things

An animal is able to percieve the world around it. An plant is not able to take in information let alone be able to understand it, probably due to the absence of a central nervous system. Thus the animals you eat are sentient and the plants are not.

sentient ['sentCH(e)ent] adj. able to percieve things

An animal is able to percieve the world around it. An plant is not able to take in information let alone be able to understand it, probably due to the absence of a central nervous system. Thus the animals you eat are sentient and the plants are not.
A camera could perceive things. A thermometer perceives things. Microbes perceive things. And I don't see why sensing what's around you makes any more important than anything.

Theres a big difference between something being alive and something being able to communicate, feel emotion (not just being programed to like a computer), and to be conscious of their life. All animals, including insects, are able to communicate with others of its kind, feel and convey emotion, and are sentient. Plants may be able to crudely communicate with each other through hormones but this is subconscious, plants do not feel emotions and are not sentient. That is why eating a cow and eating a carrot are definately not the same.

If I am thickheaded for not eating meat, why not you who does eat meat.
By eating meat, sentient beings able to communicate the emotions they feel, you are supporting the killing of animals.

What seperates us biologically from animals is our ability to use the compassion we feel to help stop this killing of animals. Although animals are able to have compassion towards beings of their own species they, unlike humans, are not able to show compassion towards beings of a different species, with exceptions including some primeapes. We should us this compassion we should all be feeling towards animals and direct our energy into making the world a better place, for animals and humans alike.

Hm, don't think I'd classify insects as sentient. They don't even have a single brain - rather, a series of ganglions that control different aspects of the creature.

I agree that we cannot totally seperate ouselves from the destruction of life, but I also think that we should take any steps we're able to inorder to help prevent it. We shouldn't say that killing is inevitable and that nothing we do will ever change the world in a more progressive way. Because saying that would be wrong. If we work for change we'll get results. We won't be able to stop all killing, but its better we tried our best than just saying nothing we do will ever count.

I agree that we cannot totally seperate ouselves from the destruction of life, but I also think that we should take any steps we're able to inorder to help prevent it. We shouldn't say that killing is inevitable and that nothing we do will ever change the world in a more progressive way. Because saying that would be wrong. If we work for change we'll get results. We won't be able to stop all killing, but its better we tried our best than just saying nothing we do will ever count.
Are you religious? If not, life is just a biological accident. Eating a plant or eating a dog is all the same, using the resources this planet has. Otherwise you're just hurting yourself.

Hm, don't think I'd classify insects as sentient. They don't even have a single brain - rather, a series of ganglions that control different aspects of the creature.

Then we're different people with different oppinions but that shouldn't stop us from not killing animals we can all agree are sentient (cows, chickens, fish...)

Are you religious? If not, life is just a biological accident. Eating a plant or eating a dog is all the same, using the resources this planet has. Otherwise you're just hurting yourself.

Do you condone the eating of dogs? YUCK!!
And whether one is religious, which I happen to be, or not we can agree that our world should act upon certain moral/ethical laws that keep society in order. One doesn't have to be religious to have to follow a code of ethics.

sentient ['sentCH(e)ent] adj. able to percieve things

An animal is able to percieve the world around it. An plant is not able to take in information let alone be able to understand it, probably due to the absence of a central nervous system. Thus the animals you eat are sentient and the plants are not.

All living systems have information systems. That is how they can interact. Plants bend toward the light, for example, because they have receptors that sense the sunlight and the ability to move and twist slightly.

So if we accept your definition (and I don't anyway) all living things would be sentient. Same with cameras, as someone else pointed out.

Do you condone the eating of dogs? YUCK!!
And whether one is religious, which I happen to be, or not we can agree that our world should act upon certain moral/ethical laws that keep society in order. One doesn't have to be religious to have to follow a code of ethics.
I don't, but people in Turkey do. Some Cajuns I know do. There's nothing unethical about eating food. That's all animals are.

All living systems have information systems. That is how they can interact. Plants bend toward the light, for example, because they have receptors that sense the sunlight and the ability to move and twist slightly.

So if we accept your definition (and I don't anyway) all living things would be sentient. Same with cameras, as someone else pointed out.

All living things are able to recieve information (including cameras), but plants (and cameras) are not able to understand the information they recieve beyond their instinct. Bending towards the sun is an instinctive action and doesn't imply an understanding. For example my cats have learned that when I whistle it means that its time for their food, my cats are not only recieve the sound but understand and make the connection that whistling means being feed.

A camera could perceive things. A thermometer perceives things. Microbes perceive things. And I don't see why sensing what's around you makes any more important than anything.

A camera detects patterns of light - it does not perceive. More accurately, in a television or CCD camera, it relays a series of electrical impulses through its output terminals according to the patterns of light falling on its internal sensors. A thermometer detects the temperature, but it does not perceive.

The definition of "perceive", from www.m-w.com
1 a : to attain awareness or understanding of b : to regard as being such <perceived threats> <was perceived as a loser>
2 : to become aware of through the senses; especially : SEE, OBSERVE

Again from Merriam Webster, the definition of perception
1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation <color perception> b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension

To have perception requires intelligence, even if not that much intelligence. A camera may detect, but it does not understand. It does not percieve.

Given a sufficiently complex artificial neural network, it may be possible to create a machine that perceives. It may be argued that such programs already in existance for converting handwriting or speech to text enable a computer to perceive, in a very simple, unthinking, deterministic manner. However the camera does not perceive, any more than your eyes do.

I don't, but people in Turkey do. Some Cajuns I know do. There's nothing unethical about eating food. That's all animals are.

I didnt ask if you personally ate food, I asked if you cared if anyone else did.

All living things are able to recieve information (including cameras), but plants (and cameras) are not able to understand the information they recieve beyond their instinct. Bending towards the sun is an instinctive action and doesn't imply an understanding. For example my cats have learned that when I whistle it means that its time for their food, my cats are not only recieve the sound but have adapted to understand and make the connection that whistling means being feed.

Precisely.

sentient ['sentCH(e)ent] adj. able to percieve things

An animal is able to percieve the world around it. An plant is not able to take in information let alone be able to understand it, probably due to the absence of a central nervous system. Thus the animals you eat are sentient and the plants are not.

One problem with that: Plants react to changes in temperature, weather, etc. with a greater accuracy than animals do. So they obviously have some way of recieving information, processing it, and reacting to it. The exact same things animals do. Guess you just proved them to be sentient by mistake.

Sentience, when used, is meant more along the lines of "2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge" and having a sense of self. The human race has problems meeting these requirements, let alone anything else, so it is a bad way of judging things.

I agree that we cannot totally seperate ouselves from the destruction of life, but I also think that we should take any steps we're able to inorder to help prevent it. We shouldn't say that killing is inevitable and that nothing we do will ever change the world in a more progressive way. Because saying that would be wrong. If we work for change we'll get results. We won't be able to stop all killing, but its better we tried our best than just saying nothing we do will ever count.

The problem is you won't even be making a dent in the larger areas of killing. The deaths of animals for food is actually a minority of animal deaths in the world. You're trying to help a problem by targetting its least part, one that happens to be essential to certain cultures that lack modern technology to support vegetarian diets and rely on bigger nations to help them even take care of themselves in the most basic level. You're not helping either cause in even the short run.

Then we're different people with different oppinions but that shouldn't stop us from not killing animals we can all agree are sentient (cows, chickens, fish...)

Please. We can't even agree if our own species is actually sentient as a species. Applying the test to others while there are still questions if we passed it is pointless. Plus, there is evidence plants fit as sentient under your version of it, thus defeating your arguement and making you look worse by saying certain sentient creatures have a right to life while others don't and condeming the opposite side for making a similar decision and comming to a result you disagree with.

Do you condone the eating of dogs? YUCK!!
And whether one is religious, which I happen to be, or not we can agree that our world should act upon certain moral/ethical laws that keep society in order. One doesn't have to be religious to have to follow a code of ethics.

In times of bad harvest, people would sometimes eat horses, dogs, and cats. So what? I've heard dog is actually not that bad. And a code of ethics is the hardest thing for humans to agree to and downright impossible to pin down for humanity as a whole.

All living things are able to recieve information (including cameras), but plants (and cameras) are not able to understand the information they recieve beyond their instinct. Bending towards the sun is an instinctive action and doesn't imply an understanding. For example my cats have learned that when I whistle it means that its time for their food, my cats are not only recieve the sound but understand and make the connection that whistling means being feed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

First you're arguing they don't react to information, then you are calling it instinctive? You really need to stop and think about something.

Instinct implies a form of intelligence, no matter how minute. Instinct is one of the early decision-governing systems in all animals, including humans, and remains an important one in the lives of most of them. Your cats learning to respond to a whistle to understand food is still dependent on the instinct to get food while it can be had. They're making a decision, but a lot of it is based upon information already in place before they were born. That's part of why they mew for attention: Quite a bit is already programmed into them and all you are doing is providing a signal for a certain piece of programming to start. It's no more advanced than a plant leaning in a certain direction because you turned a light on, then growing in that direction permanently because you turn the light on at regular intervals in that direction.

Okay, a question: What about Starfish? They're animals, yet they don't have nervous systems. Are they sentient? Or are there exceptions to animals being sentient? Because if even one exception exists, you arguement is flawed.