i encourage you to change your opinion, but at least don't deny what you said.
and you explicitly said that you agreed with animal experimentation in hope to cure humans, which is what i qualified of coward and selfish
Of course I agree with animal experimentation now, as long as it's beneficial. That's what I've always said. Being cowardly means sitting back, watching people die, and doing nothing about it. Not everyone qualifies what you qualify, especially in that particular situation.
the case we're talking about, much before only being "our diet" is "how we treat animals", which is absolutely comparable to how we treat humans
I'm talking about "eating meat". Eating meat is but a fraction of the reason behind the way we treat animals. It's possible to eat meat without animals suffering. It's they main way in which we treat them beforehand that is the focus.
and biology says we don't need meat, so what's your point?
Does biology say we are strictly herbivores? We can survive on a meatless diet. We can survive with meat in our diet. We can survive with bread. We can survive without bread.
and you think the way we treat animals is not a product of our culture?
Once again I'm talking about eating meat, not the way we treat them. People think that these two things can't be separated and that's what drives people to attack the decision to eat meat along with treatment aspect. Sure one affects the other, but it can be done without suffering.
no we're not dependent on animals
our society makes the use of animals accepted, so we happen to rely on them on a regular basis, but it's not necessary at all
You're obviously not aware that 90 percent of blood tests (titers and detections) and the vast majority of synthetic organic derived medications are all possible because of animal proteins. We would be in a medical "dark ages" right now if it wasn't for animals and subsequently, every other aspect of life would be affected by it. Animals were our original form of transportation and our original labor enabling us to move on from an agrarian society. You can't ignore how we have developed because of animals.
so now you pretend to advocate torturing them now to be able to help them later?
How can you imply that I advocate torture by this statement. You take what I say and interpret it another way. Isn't this what you've been accusing me of? Because I say that we must think about ourselves as a first priority, I advocate torture? You can't have both at the same time. For one benefit there's one sacrifice. Idealistically, we would like to all live in harmony, but that type of existence won't ever happen. While we can make the efforts to better ourselves and how we treat other creatures, there will always be conflict. Everything in nature involves conflict in order to exist. The trick is how to manage it rather than blindly trying to eradicate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither eating meat nor not eating meat is a absolute right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what is wrong with not eating meat?
This circles back to what I mentioned before. What is wrong with eating meat? You're concerned about the suffering, but the suffering has to do with they way we treat animals before we eat them. We have methods of eliminating the suffering from the process of eating meat. In England, there are farmers that not only have free range chickens, but they use inert gases with low oxygen content as a painless method. They are treated humanely and they feel no pain. What is wrong with eating meat this way?
i'm not a scientist, so i did what you can do to, i searched "without animal experimentation" in google
on the first page there's a result from
http://europa.eu.int which i suppose you'll agree should be rather non biased
First of all, that link is too general and have a broad range of subjects. What specifically did you look under? Secondly, studying diabetes treatments in animals help us to understand our treatment better because of the simple fact that they react in the same way we do. Cancer is another disease that works the very same way in which the mechanisms work in us. Immunoglobulins in animals work in animals the same way in which they work in us and when we derive a new antibiotic (not the unknown, raw versions in the early 1900's), they affect the infection in the same way in which they affect us 99 times out of 100. It's clear you have a bias in this case.
i used "soul mate" as short for "the other bluelighters who where posting 'on your side' in the thread"
english is not my language so i may not have the best choice of words sometimes
People can agree with me, but to say I'm they're my "soul mate" is awkward and inaccurate and implies a deep bond. Don't group me in with other people just because they eat the same thing I do. You're generalizing.
but it sure shows me that for most, eating meat is not a decision/wish/plan. it's more of an addiction brought by years of cultural conditioning
So you could say that any other traditional food we continue through culture is an addiction. How can you single meat as an addiction when it is a food just like any other? You can then apply the term addiction to any other behavior we derive from cultural heritage.
