Eating Meat?

[DJDannyUhOh]

Sorry. I do this crazy thing called "thinking on my own."

 

[lostpunk5545]

^ Yeah I'm sure every thought you've ever had was totally original and not influenced in the slightest by the people you interact with, the literature you read, and the music you listen to.

 

[Slaughterhousefive42]

DJ Danny, if you're using language and thought to be creative, you are unoriginal because others have constructed the language system. You learn by imitating thoughts and words.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
Creativity is the highest human capacity.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Yes but before you imitate, someone else must have done it on their own first, true? Not all guided missles hit their target.

 

[Oceanboy]

And a Sacred voice DID thus come majestically from the Highest Heavens, proclaiming;

"For the next step of your evolution, for your body to be free from excess "lower-animal passions", and for us to be able to commmunicate to you more clearly, you must give up the consumption of all animal products"

Based on actual testimonies.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Animals do not survive by rational thought. They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics or morals. To elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselves at the expense of ourselves is a flagrant contradiction in our reasoning.

PETA QUOTE:

I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals.

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/new_page_125.htm

Can we communicate with this type of reasoning?

 

[lostpunk5545]

^ I agree with PETA's sentiments, but they don't go about things in a rational way. Like any "bad religion" they make up or distort facts to further their agenda.

Props to them having information available for healthy vegetarian/vegan diets, but the propaganda side of things gets a thumbs down from me.

 

[ralph_monsters]

I keep seeing this commercial for some restaurant which encourages you to try their steak topped with shrimp and cheese.

Cow and shrimp? I always find it funny when people combine animals in their platters. Even if you eat meat, dont you think that is a little excessive?

Think about some native americans making a nice spicy dish of both buffalo and horse or something...

 

[Medatripper Tates]

for spiritual reasons, one chooses not to eat meat for easier access to the Source. it is just easier to connect than with a full stomach of heavy meats.

 

[ralph_monsters]

Are you talking about that in a spiritual sense, or because in reality you are closer to the food 'energy' which is provided by the sun.

My Chemistry Prof was talking about this saying that in a sense we are all vegetarians. Someone has to eat the plants at some point.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

So someone who has just eaten a plain salad will have a more efficient spiritual experience than an individual who has just eaten a salad with grilled chicken on it? Not only is that a matter of pure opinion, but throwing in spirituality as a reason for abstaining from meat just blurs the debate further and again it goes back to the fact that one or several individuals cannot decide what is spiritual for everyone else.

 

[Blue_Phlame]

omfg... you're all still talking about this?

i'm sure everything has been paraphrased already.
*shrug* i don't care anymore...
enjoy your discussion

 

[vegan]

back again and not tamed!

You need to remember, the idea of morals is a weak argumental tool because they vary from culture to culture

but the concept of suffering is not
would you like to suffer?
would you like others to make you suffer?
how do you justify to make others suffer?

would you like to be killed without your consent?
can you pretend that someone else wouldn't mind being killed without their consent?

i see the arguments at least as much logic as moral

One person cannot set morals for everyone

but then you can pretend to take their freedom from someone without risking it to be against the morals of this person
you cannot decide against them that it's moral to put them in a cage and kill them

but when concrete science is being twisted to suit the perceived morals of another, I will call you on it.

what? where?

You don't devote your life to science because you like torturing animals

you're naive if you don't believe that some scientists will prefer to keep torturing than admit that they are more effective and less cruel methods, or than have their funds cut off

Comparing trivial anatomical characteristics doesn't provide insight to anything. It's just taxonomy - plain and simple

why did you start it then?
you began with "Our appendix is an organ that was once used to digest vegetables. We don't need that organ anymore - we can live without it. This clearly points out that we have since been moving in a one way direction towards eating meat."
to which i answered with a pretty overwhelming enumeration of anatomical fixtures that show that we're closer to herbivores than carnivores

i don't think either that it proves anything. you tried to use it as an argument in the first place, not me

Length means absolutely nothing and this is pure nonsense

yes it does
without checking, if i remember, carnivores have a shorter intestine which allows the toxins present in meat not to stay in contact too long with their stomach and be rejected faster

Maybe you can write him and ask him why we have canine teeth while we're on the subject of anatomy.

maybe you should look at a tiger a little closer and you'll stop bragging about your canines
a carnivore has long canines that will tear raw flesh apart
let's see how easily you'll do that with our ridiculous 1cm long canines
our soft and short canines are good for apples, not for nerves

Maybe you can write him and ask him why we have canine teeth while we're on the subject of anatomy. Can the terms "nodular cuspids" be anymore of a grotesque evasion of the term "canine?" It's a euphemism. Bite your finger between your canines and let me know how "nodular" they feel.

cf ^^
let a tiger or a piranha bite your fingers and you'll see the difference

If we were true herbivores by nature, our digestive tract would have never tolerated the fibers in meat in the first place. Why didn't rabbits ever become omnivores?

let's take a wild guess : because they never had nor the physical ability nor the aptitude to make weapons that allowed humans to hunt
because a rabbit can't hunt a human whereas a human can hunt a rabbit

Evolution never allowed them to tolerate meat, making them true herbivores - unlike us

and humans were "true lacto-intolerant"... until the day that they became lacto tolerant!
you may have forgotten it, but evolution is not over. it's just started
we're just one step of evolution
humans in 1000 years will be quite different than how they are now
maybe they'll evolve to complete carnivores, but hopefully they'll evolves to herbivores
and hopefully rabbits won't evolve to omnivores or carnivores, but it's not written anywhere that they can't

When people try to make the argument by comparing these characteristics, they always avoid talking about the function of the appendix. This is no different than when religious conservatives try to say that the world isn't really 2.5 billion years old because of the distance Niagra Falls had eroded.

so since you started, you're comparing yourself to a religious conservative?
i have a whip if you like to auto mutilate yourself

This reference simply does not exist [...]It's a fabricated reference to bolster pro-animals propaganda

you have access to all the books in history?
cool

Then I can say you advocate stalling research until better ways are approved by the government so you advocate human suffering

no
i advocate using other already existing methods now
and using the time and money spend on torture on developing these other methods

and you forgot something :
i advocate stopping torture now
whereas you advocate keeping on torturing

There's no "maybe."

since none of us has seen the studies, i wouldn't claim too hard that you know for sure what methodology problem they had

And there is no more of a difference between the speed of HIV replication in animals and humans than there is between humans and other humans. Some people acquire AIDS within a few years, other people live several decades before the virus replicates and activates.

and monkeys never develop aids at all for instance!

PETA QUOTE:

I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals

first, that's a quote from edwin locke, not from "peta"
i can't find his status in the organization, so he could as well just be a subscriber

second, you really have a problem if you think that he would encourage testing on children 8(
remind me not to use sarcasm and other subtleties of language with you

he wants to pass the message that if experiments were done in favour of humans, it would only be justifiable to do them on humans, not on other species that wouldn't "benefit" from them
he obviously doesn't say this to say experiments on children would be justified but to show how unjustified he finds them on animals
"you'd find crazy to experiment on children? well, (i agree, but) it's even less justifiable to experiment on animals"

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

Sorry, the summer has caused me to lose interest in this topic. Great debate though.

 

[InnocuousUser]

I think we should try to stop all animals from killing each other, that way we could reduce suffering.

 

[LhiannonFae]

I tried to be a vegetarian when I was a bit younger based on the same beliefs, but I grew up being a meat eater, and after about a year I craved having beef so much that I raided the leftover steaks in the fridge.

I do believe that it's inhumane to treat animals the way many people in the meat industry do, which is why I go to organic and health food grocery stores such as whole foods and wild oats for my meat, where all the meat comes from animals who are fed and bred in a humane and natural way and aren't slaughtered by any violent means.

 

[kittyinthedark]

It's okay if a wolf rips a rabbit to shreds and leaves it half dead and twitching, but it's not okay for us to humanely kill a rabbit with a bolt to the head. Okay, I get it now... 8)

I think we should try to stop all animals from killing each other, that way we could reduce suffering.

 

[PurrrinInOk]

It's okay if a wolf rips a rabbit to shreds and leaves it half dead and twitching, but it's not okay for us to humanely kill a rabbit with a bolt to the head. Okay, I get it now... 8)

Eh....I've tried to stay out of this argument, but I had to say something about this.

Wolves don't walk around ripping open rabbits and leave them half dead and twitching....Wolves catch them, kill them, and eat them. In the natural animal enviornment, no part of a kill is wasted whatsoever.

Humans on the other hand, will kill an absolutely gorgeous elephant for the purpose of their TUSKS, then leave the rotting animals corpse. Humans will kill tigers, lions, leopards, gators, mink, rabbits...etc. for the SOLE purpose of using their fur for coats and handbags.

When wildlife kills, it's all about survival. When wildlife kills, the process is usually very quick, and no part of the animal is wasted. However when humans kill other animals, sadly.... it is not always humane....nor for the sole purpose of food.

 

[pseudonym]

Unfortunately this isn't true. There have been "serial killer" apes (google it). Autopsies sometimes reveal no unusual brain development. Even nature is permeated by perversity and malice, animals are usually too busy or too unimaginative/unresourceful to act on it though. Many want to believe there is a purity and innocence to the natural world but it's really not there to the extent we'd like.

 

[vegan]

Sorry, the summer has caused me to lose interest in this topic. Great debate though

thanks for following it until now

I think we should try to stop all animals from killing each other, that way we could reduce suffering

now you're going to like it because you'll have something to quote while saying "you see that he's mad!", but i do think that it would be nice.
while leaving everywhere packs of food with the nutrients they need, but from other sources, so they don't have to hunt until they mutate to herbivores
yes that's delirious because utopian and unrealizable; but i doubt you were expecting a serious answer to a non-serious proposition

which is why I go to organic and health food grocery stores such as whole foods and wild oats for my meat, where all the meat comes from animals who are fed and bred in a humane and natural way and aren't slaughtered by any violent means.

that's half the work already

It's okay if a wolf rips a rabbit to shreds and leaves it half dead and twitching, but it's not okay for us to humanely kill a rabbit with a bolt to the head. Okay, I get it now...

from this post that you forgot to read in the same thread :
"because we're of "higher consciousness", we realize very well the suffering we're causing. and we work hard on making farming more intensive, thus willingly creating more suffering
we're also very well conscious that we don't need meat to be healthy
thus, we're willingly killing animals that we know we could have let live

animals on the other hand are not as conscious of the implications of their instinctive behaviour"