NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok so theres another thread going on right now about how hunters may be attacked in the woods by animal rights hippies. (PETA people and the like) Many animal rights people are vegetarians. Some wont even touch food that comes from an animal, like milk and eggs. Im sorry, but that is completely insane. These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive, human's probably would be an extinct species if we had been strictly vegetarian. These PETA vegetarian people need to realize that the surival of humans depends on hunting and yes, exploiting animals.

We wouldn't have gone extinct because we would never have evolved in the first place.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

Ok so theres another thread going on right now about how hunters may be attacked in the woods by animal rights hippies. (PETA people and the like) Many animal rights people are vegetarians. Some wont even touch food that comes from an animal, like milk and eggs. Im sorry, but that is completely insane. These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive, human's probably would be an extinct species if we had been strictly vegetarian. These PETA vegetarian people need to realize that the surival of humans depends on hunting and yes, exploiting animals.

More importantly, vegetarian tacos are just not the same. :p

I wouldn't say if we all stopped eating meat we would go exstinct (would actually make more food available!)

but anyway what’s up with the vegetarian bashing I hate vegetables too that’s why I eat them! (I hate cows too with those smug looks on there faces:mad: )

Ok so theres another thread going on right now about how hunters may be attacked in the woods by animal rights hippies. (PETA people and the like) Many animal rights people are vegetarians. Some wont even touch food that comes from an animal, like milk and eggs. Im sorry, but that is completely insane. These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive, human's probably would be an extinct species if we had been strictly vegetarian. These PETA vegetarian people need to realize that the surival of humans depends on hunting and yes, exploiting animals.

Not in the western world, their is no need to hunt and exploit animals (except in very certain circumtances) we have reached a point where we no longer need to. The survival rate of vegetarians is probably just high as or higher than the rest of us. Alot of vegetarians despise PETA and animal rights extremists.

I have to say, since I became a vegetarian about 8 monthes ago, I have become healthier. I am now at a normal weight (I used to be quite skinny) I try food I never thought I would, I'm more active and I eat 3 meals a day, instead of just snacks and dinner. Fact: did you know that on avergae, vegetarians live 6-10 years longer then those on a meat based diet?

I have to say though, I would never have become a vegetarian if it weren't for the horrible things that are done to animals everyday. If they were still kiled in a human way, I would probabaly still eat meat, and I understand that plants were once living and we need to consume life to have life, but I have limited the types of life that I eat so that others can experience life themselves. :rolleyes:

I have to say though, I would never have become a vegetarian if it weren't for the horrible things that are done to animals everyday. If they were still kiled in a human way, I would probabaly still eat meat, and I understand that plants were once living and we need to consume life to have life, but I have limited the types of life that I eat so that others can experience life themselves. :rolleyes:

an odd question I have to ask for a hunting trip

would you kill lets say a deer if it was for dinner?

I have to say, since I became a vegetarian about 8 monthes ago, I have become healthier. I am now at a normal weight (I used to be quite skinny) I try food I never thought I would, I'm more active and I eat 3 meals a day, instead of just snacks and dinner. Fact: did you know that on avergae, vegetarians live 6-10 years longer then those on a meat based diet?


Thats only because most unhealthy eaters are meat eaters. It is actually easier to maintane a healthy diet with meat then without meat.

These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive

They usually use the counterarguments "so because animals do it, we should do it too ?" and "A tiger cannot help being a tiger. A human can choose not to kill".

Thats only because most unhealthy eaters are meat eaters. It is actually easier to maintane a healthy diet with meat then without meat.

True. Though for some reason the people that eat unhealthy meatrich meals get far less hassle than the people that eat reasonably healthy meatless meals with supplements. Until they get overweight of course.

Both are however a choice. One can choose to eat more meat than needed, or choose to eat less.

Im sorry, but that is completely insane.

No, you're not, so stop lying, and no, it isn't.

These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive, human's probably would be an extinct species if we had been strictly vegetarian. These PETA vegetarian people need to realize that the surival of humans depends on hunting and yes, exploiting animals.

Such low expectations you have of yourself. No wonder you remain morally corrupt.

an odd question I have to ask for a hunting trip

would you kill lets say a deer if it was for dinner?
I would suggest going by the age old threefold advice with regards to hunting.

1) Respect for what you hunt
2) Take only what you need
3) Use all that you take

If you're going hunting, it's probably fair to insist that you did eat your catch for dinner, as well as finding other uses for what you've taken. Similarly, I would strongly discourage you against hunting purely for the sport of it, since you do not know in what state you will leave behind the herd from which you hunt, and more often than not will not pay much attention to that during your hunting if you do not have a genuine need for what it provides.

If a PETA member ever attacks me (s)he's gonna get five 7.62x39mm rounds to the face.

In the game of evolution, humans are winning.

Not in the western world, their is no need to hunt and exploit animals (except in very certain circumtances) we have reached a point where we no longer need to.

If you mean hunting for food, then you're correct. Otherwise, there is still a need for hunting--population control.

In America, (particulalry my state of Ohio and the surrounding regions) humans have killed off the natural predators of the deer. And the deer population has exploded because of it. Humans have to take up that role as predator to keep their numbers down or they'll become too large in number and starve/disease to death.

1) Respect for what you hunt
2) Take only what you need
3) Use all that you take

those 3 rules are survival basics (though 3 is usually ignored because its not actually needed on short term and would be far better to leave bones ect for the environment to consume)

If you're going hunting, it's probably fair to insist that you did eat your catch for dinner, as well as finding other uses for what you've taken. Similarly, I would strongly discourage you against hunting purely for the sport of it, since you do not know in what state you will leave behind the herd from which you hunt, and more often than not will not pay much attention to that during your hunting if you do not have a genuine need for what it provides.

seconded you can't just go round mindlessly killing and expect to be able to hunt next year (though I suppose spending a few days providing for yourself is like sport)

If a PETA member ever attacks me (s)he's gonna get five 7.62x39mm rounds to the face.

a tad excessive can't you just beat them senseless?

Some wont even touch food that comes from an animal, like milk and eggs. Im sorry, but that is completely insane.

Deal with it. People can eat, or not eat, whatever they want without your assholish judgement of them.

If a PETA member ever attacks me (s)he's gonna get five 7.62x39mm rounds to the face.

Ah ... the IDF method.

2) Take only what you need
3) Use all that you take

I eat at Chinese buffet too!

I eat at Chinese buffet too!

Do you also get hungry an hour later?

If a PETA member ever attacks me (s)he's gonna get five 7.62x39mm rounds to the face.
Dude, are these people gonna run up and start hitting people with clubs?

I'm thinking they're just gonna wait in the brush and try to shoot people with rifles...

Do you also get hungry an hour later?

Sometimes, but I eat a lot of rice.

Sometimes, but I eat a lot of rice.

Carby.

Carby.

Yeah ... Atkins can kiss my bread eatin' ass.

Yeah ... Atkins can kiss my bread eatin' ass.

Lucky bitch.

Lucky bitch.

In the ultimate irony, Dr. Atkins died of heart problems at nearly 300 pounds.

In the ultimate irony, Dr. Atkins died of heart problems at nearly 300 pounds.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp

It sort of backs you up. Doesn't make white rice less evil, though.

In the ultimate irony, Dr. Atkins died of heart problems at nearly 300 pounds.
That's Karma for you.

If we were talking about Indian rather than Chinese, there would have been an extra spin on this. As it stands, I'll just leave you to think on that.

Ah ... the IDF method.

Not quite.

Yeah ... Atkins can kiss my bread eatin' ass.

YAY! :D

Not quite.

You're right. It wasn't from a helicopter.

don't mind vegans but hate hippies and animal right activist

yes animals have rights
the right to be dinner

Ok so theres another thread going on right now about how hunters may be attacked in the woods by animal rights hippies. (PETA people and the like) Many animal rights people are vegetarians. Some wont even touch food that comes from an animal, like milk and eggs. Im sorry, but that is completely insane. These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive, human's probably would be an extinct species if we had been strictly vegetarian. These PETA vegetarian people need to realize that the surival of humans depends on hunting and yes, exploiting animals.
Most vegetarians aren't politicised or extremist about it.

Deal with it. People can eat, or not eat, whatever they want without your assholish judgement of them.

Of course they can.

And I can chow down on a burger without being called a "murderer" by veggie-fundies.

Except they'll have that opinion anyway, just as I have mine.

What we need is an healthy diet. Vegetables have all the sort of nutrients, yes, but they don't have enough. Same goes with meat, we need to combine vegetables and eat them with meat, fish, rice, whatever.

One thing is exploiting animals, other is eating them for good health and survival.
Not all animals are cruelly killed for eating, and even though many are, that's because meat is very consumed by everyone, not that I agree with that, but if I want to eat meat and don't know exacly how the animals are killed, there isn't really much I can do, except stop eating here or there if i know they actually kill animals very painfully or their meat is unhealthy.

So stop whining, honestly, "For every animal you don't eat, i'm going to eat 3" and/or "You should be a vegan because we're right, you're wrong." isn't going to take you anywhere.

This is not an anti-vegetarian rant, I think what some vegans are doing is praisable. Just don't say I can't eat a pig if I want to. I try to eat less meat, I'm not going to completely stop eating it, not even close.

Ok, I understand that you originally were trying to bash PETA and the extremists. But do people seriously not understand the reasons people do these things? Vegans and Vegetarians alike are doing things because of what they believe. Whether it be for their health or because they don't believe in hurting other animals that they believe should live just like humans can live. MANY vegetarians aren't a part of PETA or other extreme groups because they don't agree with how the information is presented and what the group does with protests and stuff like that. When someone bashes PETA because "all vegetarians are a part of that group which then in turn makes all vegetarians bad", you are then generalizing every Vegan or Vegetarian person as being a bad person.
I, myself, would love to be able to be a vegetarian. It's not because of the rights of animals but because I believe that it is a healthier way to live. Sure, milk is the only actual known "spot reducer" with exercising but it wasn't made for a human's stomach. It was made for a cow, which has 4 stomachs to digest everything. Vegetarians aren't losing nutrients when they stop eating meat. They get ALL the vitamins and minerals needed to live by how they plan what they eat.

If people can't understand what I'm trying to say then listen to this: being a Vegan or Vegetarian is simply a way of life. Some people do it because they want to be healthy, like people who chose to watch calories or want to exercise a ton. Others do it because they believe that animals have a right to live too. They are understanding people who just believe in something different than you. There are extremists from every group in the world. Those are the people you look past because they just want your attention. They are also the ones that you are using to judge every other person who is vegan/vegetarian who you've never spoken with. And that, my dear friend, is insane.

Kocher']*snip* They get ALL the vitamins and minerals needed to live by how they plan what they eat.


What i heard and posted previouslly, is they have all the vitamins and minerals, yet, they don't have enough of them in order to be 100% healthy. So, eating meat, say, once or twice in a week wouldn't hurt them. Same goes to all meat eaters, eating less meat and more vegetables some times wouldn't hurt you either.

Ok so theres another thread going on right now about how hunters may be attacked in the woods by animal rights hippies. (PETA people and the like) Many animal rights people are vegetarians. Some wont even touch food that comes from an animal, like milk and eggs. Im sorry, but that is completely insane. These people say that we are sick becuase we exploit animals for our own good, but have these people ever looked at the animal kingdom, wolves bears vultures etc. all eat meat to stay alive, human's probably would be an extinct species if we had been strictly vegetarian. These PETA vegetarian people need to realize that the surival of humans depends on hunting and yes, exploiting animals.
You're right, in a sense; humans are naturally omnivores. That doesn't mean we have to eat meat, although it does mean we have to eat some non-meat foodstuffs (discounting dietary supplements). If someone chooses to be vegetarian because they don't believe in the killing and exploitation of animals, let them. It's their right to choose. It's also more healthy, considering the lower amounts of sat. fat.

If anything, I'd be more inclined to be up in arms over those on the Atkins diet, seeing as it's almost bound to be unhealthy in the long term and is based upon bad science. Then again, that's also their decision, although I'd be inclined to advise against it.

I have to say, since I became a vegetarian about 8 monthes ago, I have become healthier. I am now at a normal weight (I used to be quite skinny) I try food I never thought I would, I'm more active and I eat 3 meals a day, instead of just snacks and dinner. Fact: did you know that on avergae, vegetarians live 6-10 years longer then those on a meat based diet?
And people who are right-handed live longer than lefties.

The ultimate stat: 100% of births eventually result in death.

What i heard and posted previouslly, is they have all the vitamins and minerals, yet, they don't have enough of them in order to be 100% healthy. So, eating meat, say, once or twice in a week wouldn't hurt them. Same goes to all meat eaters, eating less meat and more vegetables some times wouldn't hurt you either.

I understand what you're trying to say but in all reality... if you eat banana's and beans... you have all of the vitamins and minerals needed in life AND the right amount of nutrients needed...

I don't know enough about nutrition to say you'r right or wrong, but it looks to me that that wouldn't be very healthy.

I'm not saying vegetarians are unhealthy, by the contrary, probably most of them are healthier than meat eaters. By what I know about the subject (it's not much, mind you), is that for the greatest health is to combine both: probably eating less meat than vegetables, but, eating both nevertheless. From what i heard, vegetarians can suffer from nutrition problems in long terms, no, i don't have anything to back this up, i just heard it on TV long time ago.

You're right... it wouldn't be very healthy at all... only eating bananas and beans... I do understand about the eating less meat. The average person has 5lbs of undigested red-meat stuck in their intestines by the time they are 70 because humans CAN'T digest blood. The red-meat, if not cooked long enough, is so saturated in blood that the stomach cannot digest it and thus, leaving it in the digestive sys. to never come out.

By the way, I do eat meat. Just not as much as the average Joe.

And people who are right-handed live longer than lefties.

The ultimate stat: 100% of births eventually result in death.

While we're going there, more automobile accidents are caused by sober people than drunk drivers, women are more likely to be arrested for prostitution than men, and people taking antidepressants are more likely to commit suicide than anybody else.

The point is one can spin statistics any way one wants to prove whatever is convenient to prove.

In the game of evolution, humans are winning.

Because of over population and the way we live now, we are 1,000 years behind, atleast, in evolution.

Because of over population and the way we live now, we are 1,000 years behind, atleast, in evolution.
What makes you say that? :confused:

What makes you say that? :confused:
evolutionary biology.
And the fact that even the stupidest people (who would have been picked off by nature) can successfully reproduce and raise stupid children (although i know that two stupid parents do not always raise a stupid child, it is the truth the majority of the time)

evolutionary biology.Any chance of a clarification on that? Evolutionary biology is a massive field, prone to inaccuracies and debatable points.
And the fact that even the stupidest people (who would have been picked off by nature) can successfully reproduce and raise stupid children (although i know that two stupid parents do not always raise a stupid child, it is the truth the majority of the time)
I don't see what that has to do with evolution. Natural selection, certainly, although I doubt you could put an accurate figure on the slowing of change. If anything, culture has accelerated our selection for more intelligent people, as the reduction in geographical barriers between populations has meant that individuals have a greater pool of potential mates to choose from, hence allowing for more genetically fit offspring. The reduction in incest will have helped this as well, seeing as more of the population will be heterozygous for intelligence alleles hence reducing the number of genetically stupid people. Also the increase in group knowledge, especially about teaching methods to maximise developmental intelligence, will have benefitted average IQ.

IQ's one of those things where the phenotype does not directly match its genotype - intelligence can be greatly enhanced or decreased during development by the child's environment. More stimuli would probably result in a more intelligent adult.

Any chance of a clarification on that?....

no, not really.

besides, smart people reproduce less than uneducated people, and stupid people breed stupid people.

stupid people aren't likely to provide all the stimulation needed for their children to develop correctly anyways.

and what about our disease resistance? our intelligence is used, through medical and pharmiceutical technology, to combat that. So we as a species do not necessarily need to build a resistance to those things.....

anyways, natural selection aids evolution.

Kocher']You're right... it wouldn't be very healthy at all... only eating bananas and beans... I do understand about the eating less meat. The average person has 5lbs of undigested red-meat stuck in their intestines by the time they are 70 because humans CAN'T digest blood.
I've heard anywhere from 5 to 25. And I've yet to find one--ANY--medical journal to substantiate this.

While we're going there, more automobile accidents are caused by sober people than drunk drivers, women are more likely to be arrested for prostitution than men, and people taking antidepressants are more likely to commit suicide than anybody else.

The point is one can spin statistics any way one wants to prove whatever is convenient to prove.
Which was my point.

I'm going to pick this apart, not because I like the technique but because the writing style lends itself to being separated into points.
no, not really.I meant what part of evolutionary biology, as in a specific theory or group of theories.besides, smart people reproduce less than uneducated people, and stupid people breed stupid people.Any real basis for that? I'm aware personally of larger intelligent families and smaller less intelligent ones, and especially of teen pregnancies across all ranges of intellect. Why should stupid people breed more? As for the stupid people breeding stupid people, it goes against a basic understanding of the polygenetic nature of genes linked with intelligence. For all the offspring of stupid people to be stupid, the parents would have to be completely homozygous for stupidity, which is highly unlikely. I still maintain that modern culture pushes an increase in overall intelligence, not a decrease.stupid people aren't likely to provide all the stimulation needed for their children to develop correctly anyways.No, but that's what schools are for, another benefit of modern culture.and what about our disease resistance? our intelligence is used, through medical and pharmiceutical technology, to combat that. So we as a species do not necessarily need to build a resistance to those things.....I agree with you on this, but only to a certain extent. The use of modern pharmaceuticals has certainly accelerated the evolution of pathogens - it would be ludicrous to argue otherwise. However, the pathogens would have evolved to be more virulent, more deadly, more efficient, all as a byproduct of their need to survive and overcome our immune systems. The current H5N1 fears, for example, are nothing to do with modern medicine seeing as the flu virus is adaptive enough to change rapidly on its own. However, problems such as MRSA cannot be ignored - they are they byproduct of our meddling. There will come a point where resistance to such versatile diseases will need to arise, lest the human race perish. However, that position would have only existed in the future anyway as the pathogens reached this point by a slower route. In its current state, modern medicine has done little to truly affect our evolution except change the selection factors we must face.anyways, natural selection aids evolution.Damn right it does, but natural selection is not the sole contributor to evolution. It takes an accumulation of mutations and speciation factors, allopatric or sympatric, to force a divergence in a species.

-snip the biology/evolution lecture-
You're going to be a bundle of laughs at the London meet, aren't you? ;)

You're going to be a bundle of laughs at the London meet, aren't you? ;)
You think I talk about this normally? If I'm sober enough to stand, I'm going to come on to you then be sick in your shoes.

You think I talk about this normally? If I'm sober enough to stand, I'm going to come on to you then be sick in your shoes.
Hang on, in my shoes? Where are my feet going to be?

Hang on, in my shoes? Where are my feet going to be?
Sticking out from under my YHA covers, with any luck.

Aside: Perchance I've said too much on here for now,
I'll get him later, 'neath the mistl'ed bow.
I'm bored and saw a chance for some pentametric fun. Sue me :p

EDIT: FEAR ME.

Sticking out from under my YHA covers, with any luck.

Aside: Perchance I've said too much on here for now,
I'll get him later, 'neath the mistl'ed bow.
I'm bored and saw a chance for some pentametric fun. Sue me :p

EDIT: FEAR ME.
I'll be making sure I don't drink anything you buy me, then.

And don't worry, I do.

I'll be making sure I don't drink anything you buy me, then.

And don't worry, I do.
Good. Fear is an healthy emotion, that's why the Media makes sure we get above our Recommended Daily Allowance.

To claify, stupid=uneducated (no inferior intellectual ability though.) and smart=educated (privileged (or motivated) enough to obtain higher education )


I meant what part of evolutionary biology, as in a specific theory or group of theories.
I dont know, a biologist friend of mine said it in passing while she was reading through an evolutionary biology book.

Any real basis for that? I'm aware personally of larger intelligent families....
ok, so you know large educated families and small uneducated families. And there are probably plenty of other families like that out there...but as far as a general trend goes, educated families tend to have fewer children. Look at the fertility rate for many 1st world nations. They have a large educated populous, and their fertilit yrates are low, and getting lower. Now, look at nations in Africa for example. Most of them have much higher fertility rates than europe, like 3 times higher. While there are some educated individuals from those countries, most are not as privileged. And they are the ones having all the children.

No, but that's what schools are for, another benefit of modern culture.
Ok,yes, we have schools that try to give that stimulation. But it is reported that academic success has more to do with motivation and effort than natural intelligence. So while everyone has roughly the same intelligence, motivation and effort (influenced by the home environment) is what defines those who are educated and those who are uneducated.

And family environment tends to affect how an individual grows up. children share their parents' values. A family that is uneducated and does not put a great emphasis on education will have children that do not perform well academically.

but i know there are exceptions, there always are. But these are what people tend towards, what they generally do.

I agree with you on this, but only to a certain extent. The use of modern pharmaceuticals .....

I was not talking about the evolution of viruses. I was talking about human evolution. Of course viruses evolve.

Damn right it does, but natural selection .......

I know that natural selection is not the sole factor in evolution. But i was not saying that humans have stopped evolving...just that they are a bit slow. and there are articles about how humans evolve slower than other animals.

I mentioned this earlier, but i heard that humans were 1,000 yrs. behind from a biologist friend at school as she was reading through a text book. And she did not follow up with any other facts. A post on here just reminded me of it, so i decided to reply with it. Thanks for your reply to my posts, i wasn't expecting any responce from it. It was fun.

If you mean hunting for food, then you're correct. Otherwise, there is still a need for hunting--population control.

In America, (particulalry my state of Ohio and the surrounding regions) humans have killed off the natural predators of the deer. And the deer population has exploded because of it. Humans have to take up that role as predator to keep their numbers down or they'll become too large in number and starve/disease to death.



Ah, an ohio person. me too.