Eating Meat?

[StagnantReaction]

DJDanny, I see you trying to make a point that humans depend on animal products. So how exactly do raw food dietists live?

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

I'm not saying you can't live on raw vegetation, I'm saying your diet would have to change significantly to get the same amount of certain elements found in an omnivorous diet. Who are we to tell each other what we can and cannot eat, or what our diet should consist of? This is my point.

 

[StagnantReaction]

^^ That's strange. All I had to do was substitute animal products with beans and I'm healthier than I've ever been in my life.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

^^ That's strange. All I had to do was substitute animal products with beans and I'm healthier than I've ever been in my life.

Cutting animal products is neither a simple process nor is it a preference that people will universally agree on. People will always crave meat or other animals products.

 

[StagnantReaction]

^^ I disagree. When provided an equal substitute, and factoring out taste preference, your last statement holds no truth.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

That's the trick, not everyone has the same tastes or will find the same foods appealing. Also, you would need more vegetable sources other than beans to equal the amount of probiotics and other digestive flora found in a cup of yogurt.

 

[StagnantReaction]

^^ And you'd need vegetable sources to equal the nutrients found in beans. What the hell is your point?

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

What about people that eat meat AND beans? What about other people that do not eat those other vegetables? Now we're coming back to changing people's diet again. Eating beans alone simply doesn't solve the animal products substitute, whether you feel healthy or not.

 

[PurrrinInOk]

Again, I wonder if it is possible for a carnivor and vegetarian to share the same household?

I am a vegetarian. It's a personal/ethical choice for me. I have never liked meat.....not once I found out that it was a cooked animal that could look back at me.

I am married... my son and husband both eat meat. I cook meat for them...I would rather not do this of course, but it's my job to take care of them. I just cook separate meals for myself.

We actually live quite harmoniously together

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

We actually live quite harmoniously together

The key is not forcing you opinions on others, true?

 

[PurrrinInOk]

The key is not forcing you opinions on others, true?

Yepperz

 

[vegan]

Of course I agree with animal experimentation now, as long as it's beneficial

you just tried to made it pass as if you only agreed because there was no other choice

there is another choice : to stop pretending you don't have the choice and use and develop alternative methods

Being cowardly means sitting back, watching people die, and doing nothing about it

that's not being coward. that's being selfish and heartless and that's not what i advocate
but neither do i advocate being selfish and heartless towards animals

taking the pain from someone to transfer it to someone else is not a solution
and when you don't have a solution, you keep searching instead of trying to justify your error

but it's as legitimate to be dead set against eating animals as against other injustices

Again, you cannot compare the concepts of how we treat fellow human beings to what has been in our diet for hundreds of thousands of years.

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

since animals are treated the way they are in meat production, you cannot pretend to dissociate the 2
also, even if animals didn't suffer in meat production, you'd still kill them to eat them.
and to go back to the first quote, it's as legitimate to be dead set against killing animals as against killing other sentient beings

Again, this comes down to culture and how we perceive it. A diet that includes meat is concrete - there's biology behind it.

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.

you first said that contrarily to racism, which is cultural, eating meat is biological
i reminded you that it's not at all a necessity. like you say, it's no more a biological necessity than eating bread
what are you trying to prove by repeating it?
eating meat is no more "concrete" because our biology allows us to than racism is "concrete" because our biology allows us to

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

once they'll be separated, no one will bother linking them
but 9 times out of 10, when you buy and eat a steak, it comes from an animal that was mistreated

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

no i'm not aware
but i'm aware of a little text i linked that said " Organ, cell and tissue cultures are now commonplace"
i'm also aware of scientists who explain that if we hadn't stupidly wasted time on animal experimentation, these alternative methods would have be commonplace much before

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

and so instead we're in the "dark ages" of animal torturing
i don't feel like we've gained much in the trade
healthy body sick mind

You can't ignore how we have developed because of animals

with the help of animals, yes
because of animals, no
and what if we had evolved without using animals?
our evolution would have taken more time, but our ethics would have evolved to
now humans pretend to be evolved while dropping atomic bombs on each other
hooray for evolution! but we forgot something in the process

If we can't care for ourselves, how will we learn or even continue to survive to care for others?

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 said "care for ourselves" = cure humans with your ways = experimenting on animals
call it however you want, experimenting on animals is torturing them

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?

no, you yourself try to reinterpret what you said
by "caring about ourselves" you were explicitly referring to experimenting on animals to find cures for humans

You can't have both at the same time. For one benefit there's one sacrifice

still from the handy book of invented excuses?
where can i buy it at? should be useful for whenever i want to escape compromise

Idealistically, we would like to all live in harmony, but that type of existence won't ever happen

one thing is sure, it's that if you don't try, you won't get it

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.

from the news today : "the universe appeared recently. it's barely taking shape and will be evolving for ages to come. nothing is written yet and we can work at making it the best place possible. and 'it's like this so it can't change' is a bad excuse to justify not making the effort"

The trick is how to manage it rather than blindly trying to eradicate it.

"blindly" eradicate?
adding random adjectives doesn't make it an argument
do people "blindly" try to suppress hunger in the world rather than try to manage it?
did the Allies "blindly" free the jews instead of manage the oppression?
...

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. [...] They are treated humanely and they feel no pain. What is wrong with eating meat this way?

you didn't answer my question: what is wrong with not eating meat?

because i can answer your question "What is wrong with eating meat?" : 90% of meat production is intensive
as in no sky above, no grass under, no space anywhere, no intimacy, no freedom... lots of noise, stress, antibiotics, boredom...
i don't think you've ever even said you ate free range meat (i apologize if you did), so how do you even dare trying to use it as an argument!

what's wrong with eating animals that were bred in perfectly peaceful conditions? : the same thing as with me killing you painlessly without your consent
there is a huge progress compared to intensive breeding, but you still kill when you could let live

First of all, that link is too general and have a broad range of subjects. What specifically did you look under?

yep, sorry. i thought i had copied it entirely
but you still get it on the first page of google with "without animal experimentation"
it's http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/rtdinfo/en/24/03.html

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

you asked " What methods have I missed that we can use now that will give us more certain results? "
it seems to me that this link gives you an answer

adding random examples of "successful" animal experimentation won't change the fact that, yes, there are alternative methods that will give us more certain results

but anyway, i put "successful" with comas because for one disease to which a type of animal reacts as humans, how many are there to which it reacts totally differently?
how many animals are then sacrificed without any gain?
is that whole process a success?

the first link in google with "diabetes animal experimentation" says "[...] Therefore, as reservoirs of insulin, animals have been useful for diabetic therapy, but animals experiments were not necessary for the discoveries that led to insulin treatment" (not an "official" site, could be biased)

Cancer is another disease that works the very same way in which the mechanisms work in us

i searched "cancer animal experimentation" in google and got these 50 disasters of animal testing plus other links saying things like "Why hasn't progress against cancer been commensurate with the effort (and money) invested? One explanation is the unwarranted preoccupation with animal research. Crucial genetic,35 molecular,36 immunologic,37 and cellular38 differences between humans and other animals have prevented animal models from serving as effective means by which to seek a cancer cure. Cancer researcher Jerome Leavitt has explained that human cancer "may have critical mechanical differences which may in turn require different, uniquely human approaches to cancer eradication."36"

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

c'est surtout comment vous êtes parti en guerre contre moi qui donne cette impression d'équipe. après, encore une fois, j'ai mis ça faute de connaître un mot plus adapté. ben au moins avec ce mot maladroit je t'aurai permis de détourner l'attention du fait que eux m'avaient vraiment insulté alors que moi je n'ai fait que donner mon jugement

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.

and when did i single out meat?
of course many behaviours can be addictions

oh, here's a thread where i say "i think the more "addicted" that i'll ever be will never be much more than my current relation with chocolate!"
and here to the thread "i am now addicted to...", i answer chocolate

Mind your goddamned business

when you start killing others, it's not only your goddamn business anymore
"let me beat my wife and mind your goddamn business!"
yeah right"

It's the methods we should analyze, not someone who goes to a steakhouse

if people keep buying, do you think the meat industry will do anything that will augment their costs?
obviously no

the decision to not eat meat must come from within us

how do you want to make your own decision about a topic if no one tells you the facts?
vegetarian ideas are a minority and most people are never confronted to them
obviously you hadn't heard many of the pro-veg*an arguments either
at least now you have the tools to make your own decision
so far the society had made the decision for you
in 10 years you'll be able to say that you've thought about it and that it's your own decision

You can make the argument that this is the reason we depend on some animal products.

damn, i must be dead then! and all the other vegans too, i have to tell them

People will always crave meat or other animals products.

from the book of...

Eating beans alone simply doesn't solve the animal products substitute, whether you feel healthy or not

yep, you feel you're healthy but you're not! ah ah! you'll die at 98 years old having felt healthy all your life, but in fact you were not, ah ah, got you!

seriously what is this fixation with "substituting animal products"?
if a meat eater stops eating carrots, do i say he has to substitute carrots or do i just say he's eating something else instead?
does a westerner who goes to asia substitute was he was eating or does he just eat differently?
vegetarians don't have to substitute anything, they just have to eat various foods, like any meat eater should too
it's slightly different for vegans but there's a thread in healthy living about that

 

[SonOF]

Is Karma real? Do you get what you deserve? Does everything happen for a reason? Is God Love & LSD? I think so.

I am going to have to answer "no" to all those questions.

 

[GoddessFrija]

I am going to have to answer "no" to all those questions.

Sounds like you're not very experienced but if you're experiencing bliss it doesn't matter, you should write your own book of philosophy like those nobodies who wrote the God Dialogue books or Johnathan Livingstoned Seagull.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

there is another choice : to stop pretending you don't have the choice and use and develop alternative methods

Didn't I explain the reasons why stem cell research and human research aren't viable at this moment in time? You may elect to wait it out until the perfect world comes to its fruition, but society won't. Didn't you just complain about having to repeat things over and over again? We are going to test on plants? That's exponentially less reliable than the least reliable of animal testing.

taking the pain from someone to transfer it to someone else is not a solution and when you don't have a solution, you keep searching instead of trying to justify your error

Turning to less reliable, if not reckless, ways of research isn't the solution either. Are you going to tell a patient that they can keep their pain and abandon their hope just because we elect to pass up the next best alternative? You perceive it as an error. I perceive it as progress in the place of stagnation. If you are that concerned about animals with total disregard for humans, you should displace yourself from the social structure of humanity and live in the wild.

since animals are treated the way they are in meat production, you cannot pretend to dissociate the 2
also, even if animals didn't suffer in meat production, you'd still kill them to eat them.
and to go back to the first quote, it's as legitimate to be dead set against killing animals as against killing other sentient beings

I never said it wasn't legitimate to have that opinion. It's when you apply it to different issues to substantiate your argument, that I have a debate with. The truth is we kill them for food, much like other animals kill other animals for food, and if we can ultimately do it without suffering, all the more better. When it's convenient, you group us all together as sentient beings, yet you say we're separate because we have a higher understanding of suffering and should realize the suffering we cause. Which one is it? Just because we understand suffering, unlike other animals, does that give one the right to claim human kind should not eat them anymore?

i reminded you that it's not at all a necessity. like you say, it's no more a biological necessity than eating bread
what are you trying to prove by repeating it?

I'm proving that just because a food is not a necessity, it doesn't give anyone the right to make the decision for the rest of us to stop eating it.

once they'll be separated, [meat and animal mistreatment] no one will bother linking them
but 9 times out of 10, when you buy and eat a steak, it comes from an animal that was mistreated

We need to focus on the "9 out of 10" aspect. This is the part you're really having the problem with, not who's eating it. And if and when we ever achieve significant reduction in the negative ways animals are treated, getting people to stop eating meat will become an even more futile effort. You're against killing other animals because you see no purpose in it. Others, however, see a purpose - to eat them like we've been doing. Others see this purpose as legitimate as you see not killing them.

you said "care for ourselves" = cure humans with your ways = experimenting on animals
call it however you want, experimenting on animals is torturing them

I never said experimenting on animals wasn't torture? What's your point?

still from the handy book of invented excuses?
where can i buy it at? should be useful for whenever i want to escape compromise

It's great to be an idealist rather than a realist, unfortunately it separates you from reality and how we must deal with and manage it. And you shouldn't be the one to talk about escaping compromise. Look at this whole debate. Look at all the compromises I have made.

from the news today : "the universe appeared recently. it's barely taking shape and will be evolving for ages to come.
nothing is written yet and we can work at making it the best place possible. and 'it's like this so it can't change' is a bad excuse to justify not making the effort"

Yet another statement you put in my mouth to further your argument. I'm all for putting effort into improving our coexistence with nature, it's just you think it can be done cleanly and quickly with no blood, sweat, or tears. Look at the world around you before fixating on a Utopia.

i'm also aware of scientists who explain that if we hadn't stupidly wasted time on animal experimentation, these alternative methods would have be commonplace much before

An extremely small minority I might point out. If the majority of them had that opinion, we wouldn't be doing so in the first place. Also, it is a straight out bias. (as I point out at the end of this thread)

and what if we had evolved without using animals?
our evolution would have taken more time, but our ethics would have evolved to
now humans pretend to be evolved while dropping atomic bombs on each other
hooray for evolution! but we forgot something in the process

This is another example of your idealist views. You take the good with the bad, no? Where in any self sustainable system of nature do you see the absence of conflict and life and death?

no, you yourself try to reinterpret what you said
by "caring about ourselves" you were explicitly referring to experimenting on animals to find cures for humans

It's an inevitable part of the equation anyway you look at it. Caring for ourselves involves many things, you just happen to be fixated on one aspect of it. Like I said before, you can't just take what you want and ignore the rest.

you didn't answer my question: what is wrong with not eating meat?

Nothing is wrong with not eating meat. That's not the issue here. Nothing is wrong with eating meat as well. I'm not saying not eating meat is wrong, I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with eating meat as well.

because i can answer your question "What is wrong with eating meat?" : 90% of meat production is intensive
as in no sky above, no grass under, no space anywhere, no intimacy, no freedom... lots of noise, stress, antibiotics, boredom...
i don't think you've ever even said you ate free range meat (i apologize if you did), so how do you even dare trying to use it as an argument!

If I never said anything about if I did or didn't eat free range meat, how can you make such an assumption then? How do you know I don't purchase the meat I do eat from private farmers? In fact, there happens to be an abundance of private farms in the south suburbs of Chicago. Can I not still make the argument either way? You're putting alot of words into my mouth lately.

i searched "cancer animal experimentation" in google and got these 50 disasters of animal testing plus other links saying things like "Why hasn't progress against cancer been commensurate with the effort (and money) invested? One explanation is the unwarranted preoccupation with animal research. Crucial genetic,35 molecular,36 immunologic,37 and cellular38 differences between humans and other animals have prevented animal models from serving as effective means by which to seek a cancer cure. Cancer researcher Jerome Leavitt has explained that human cancer "may have critical mechanical differences which may in turn require different, uniquely human approaches to cancer eradication."36"

I specifically work with viral biotechnology in the delivery of modified oncogene or cancer gene replacements. Without getting into cell and structural biology too much, I can assure you the reason cancer is difficult to cure is the fact that genetic mutation affects the surface proteins on cells and they essentially become invisible to our own immune system. It's the
unpredictable genetic mechanism of cancer itself we must understand, whether it be in an animal or ourselves is not the issue. Preoccupation with an animal is not the issue. Cancer's specificity is concerned only with cells, not the host organism. The biomechanics of genetic mutation in cancer cells work the same way in all animals with the exception of marine life.

and when did i single out meat?
of course many behaviours can be addictions

You referred specifically to meat as an addiction, using that term as a reason why we still eat it. You singled out meat.

People will always crave meat or other animals products.

from the book of...

From the book of "We Always Have Been". 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.

vegetarians don't have to substitute anything, they just have to eat various foods

That's assuming that meat eaters and vegetarians have the same diet, which we know is not true.

Lastly, the web site you pointed out with the 50 disasters of animals testing - http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html - is sponsored by and provides links to nothing but pro-animal propaganda. How can you say this is a non-bias, value-free, substantiated view of scientific research??? Also, their lists of reference couldn't be more ambiguous. Here's on of the references they list:

[36]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, pp360-400.

How the hell do you go about confirming that reference? Even if it was legit, it's over 20 years old.

Here is one of the 50:

48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

I'd like to know just exactly where this is substantiated. Laboratories used to use cell culture/mulit-analyte fluorescent detection to measure killer T-cells and CD4 and CD8 surface proteins which is an older methodology than our current rapid flow cytometry, and the two will produce different results when you contast them against a simple quantitation/qualitation by PCR'ing HIV DNA either in an animal or human. The problem wasn't the animals they were using, the problem was the methodologies used.

 

[vegan]

Didn't I explain the reasons why stem cell research and human research aren't viable at this moment in time?

where did you explain it?
i've already read about results found from stem cell research
and the link says that some alternative methods "have replaced the thousands of rabbits and rats used 25 years ago for pregnancy tests"
so they are viable

Turning to less reliable, if not reckless , ways of research isn't the solution either

and it's not the purpose either
it's to find better ways that don't hurt anyone

Are you going to tell a patient that they can keep their pain and abandon their hope just because we elect to pass up the next best alternative?

they can have a new hope that their cure won't kill others
are you going to tell someone that you can save them, but only if we take someone else's heart?

If you are that concerned about animals with total disregard for humans

you won't gain anything by trying to credit me with things i don't say or think

i obviously don't disregard humans
but i don't disregard animals either. can you say the same?

it would be the same as saying that to refuse to take organs from living females to transplant to males is to disregard males

When it's convenient, you group us all together as sentient beings, yet you say we're separate because we have a higher understanding of suffering and should realize the suffering we cause. Which one is it?

i said it before
when the subject is pain and freedom, the criteria is the ability to feel pain and enjoy freedom
we are then altogether as sentient beings

when the subject is the harm we're willingly doing to others, the criteria is the ability to understand that we're doing harm and to try to avoid it
we're then separate from the animals because of our intelligence

I'm proving that just because a food is not a necessity, it doesn't give anyone the right to make the decision for the rest of us to stop eating it.

i haven't used it as an argument (didn't pretend it gave any right) but as an answer to flawed arguments
because meat is not a necessity makes the arguments that we need it or that it's biological valueless

You're against killing other animals because you see no purpose in it. Others, however, see a purpose

not because i see no purpose, but because the purpose doesn't justify the killing
if i killed you to eat you
there would be a purpose in killing you
would that justify it?
does the piece of meat in your mouth justify taking the life of a sentient animals who doesn't want to die?

How can you imply that I advocate torture by this statement

I never said experimenting on animals wasn't torture? What's your point?

my point is that since you advocate animal experimentation, you advocate torture

It's great to be an idealist rather than a realist, unfortunately it separates you from reality and how we must deal with and manage it

fortunately it allows you not to be slave of your idea of how reality is and should stay
you believe that in this world "For one benefit there's one sacrifice" and so you don't even consider trying to put an end to the sacrifices
but there is no truth in that "rule"
it happens like this sometimes, but it doesn't have to by "universal law"
why do you prefer to accept the sacrifices rather than find an option that will only be beneficial?

it's just you think it can be done cleanly and quickly with no blood, sweat, or tears

no, but i can tell when we are ourselves provoking the blood, sweat and tears and where we could put an end to them

Look at the world around you before fixating on a Utopia

in the world around me i see, among the rest, vegans having happy lives and scientists fighting against animal experimentation
they tell me it's not utopia, it's just a very long way

Where in any self sustainable system of nature do you see the absence of conflict and life and death?

life and death, i don't see why you ask the question. of course they are everywhere
conflict is in some places much more than in others
many species of animals are quite peaceful
and humans, with their intelligence, have the ability to chose the way of life they want and not just copy what already exists. if they chose to, they can evolve into a much more peaceful species
yes it's idealistic, but better to aim far and reach half way than to aim close and indeed only reach close

Caring for ourselves involves many things, you just happen to be fixated on one aspect of it

well, excuse me if that's what the thread is about

you can't just take what you want and ignore the rest.

that's only true if what you wish to take has bad consequences
but you don't want to take the same things as i do
you want the results from animal experimentation
i want the results from alternative methods

Nothing is wrong with not eating meat. That's not the issue here. Nothing is wrong with eating meat as well. I'm not saying not eating meat is wrong, I'm saying that there's nothing wrong with eating meat as well

maybe you've forgotten about the billions of animals who suffer and are killed every year for meat consumption?
no, there's nothing "wrong" with not eating meat
yes, there's something "wrong" with eating meat

If I never said anything about if I did or didn't eat free range meat, how can you make such an assumption then?

because you would have said it in the first posts like everyone does
i've been having the same conversations for 10 years, i know how people react
they hurry up to show that they care by explaining that they buy free range
but even if you did, you wouldn't make me believe that you boycott restaurants that don't serve free range meat

Can I not still make the argument either way? You're putting alot of words into my mouth lately

no you can't
the 90% still exist, even if you eat free range
you're putting my words in your mouth a bit quickly

Cancer's specificity is concerned only with cells, not the host organism

you don't seem to agree with google's "Crucial genetic,35 molecular,36 immunologic,37 and cellular38 differences between humans and other animals have prevented animal models from serving as effective means by which to seek a cancer cure" which tell us that cells differ with different host organisms
who should i believe?

You referred specifically to meat as an addiction, using that term as a reason why we still eat it. You singled out meat.

should i just repeat my previous answer?
yes meat is an addiction, as many other products, like chocolate that i have mentioned for myself
so, no, i haven't singled out meat as an addiction. it's just one of many addictions. and it just happens to be the subject of the thread

People will always crave meat or other animals products

from the [handy book of invented excuses?]

From the book of "We Always Have Been"

well, i've started to write a new book. and it's called "i don't crave meat anymore, proof that what has always been doesn't have to always be"
no, there's no universal law saying that people will always crave meat
i and many others are the proof
the smell of meat makes me want to throw up now
i just see eat as chopped up corpse

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.

since you want to play that game, not that i think it changes anything to the moral issue :

Comparative anatomy of humans: by Milton R. Mills, M.D. In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a “committed” herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
Facial Muscles Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape; Herbivore: Well-developed; Omnivore: Reduced; Human: Well-developed
Jaw Type Carnivore: Angle not expanded; Herbivore: Expanded angle; Omnivore: Angle not expanded; Human: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location Carnivore: On same plane as molar teeth; Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars; Omnivore: On same plane as molar teeth; Human: Above the plane of the molars;
* Jaw Motion Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion; Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back; Omnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side; Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles Carnivore: Temporalis; Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids; Omnivore: Temporalis; Human: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size Carnivore: Large; Herbivore: Small; Omnivore: Large; Human: Small;
Teeth (Incisors) Carnivore: Short and pointed; Herbivore: Broad, flattened and spade shaped; Omnivore: Short and pointed;
Human: Broad, flattened and spade shaped;
Teeth (Canines) Carnivore: Long, sharp and curved; Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none; Omnivore: Long, sharp and curved; Human: Short and blunted;
Teeth (Molars) Carnivore: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped; Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface; Omnivore: Sharp blades and/or flattened; Human: Flattened with nodular cusps;
Chewing Carnivore: None; swallows food whole; Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary; Omnivore: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing; Human: Extensive chewing necessary;
Saliva Carnivore: No digestive enzymes; Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes; Omnivore: No digestive enzymes; Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes;
Stomach Type Carnivore: Simple; Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers; Omnivore: Simple; Human: Simple;
Stomach Acidity Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach; Herbivore: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach; Omnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach; Human: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach;
Stomach Capacity Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract; Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract; Omnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract; Human: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract;
Length of Small Intestine Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length; Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length; Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length; Human: 10 to 11 times body length;
Colon Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth; Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated; Omnivore: Simple, short and smooth; Human: Long, sacculated;
Liver Carnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A; Herbivore: Cannot detoxify vitamin A; Omnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A; Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A;
Kidney Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine; Omnivore: Extremely concentrated urine; Human: Moderately concentrated urine;
Nails Carnivore: Sharp claws; Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves; Omnivore: Sharp claws

Lastly, the web site you pointed out with the 50 disasters of animals testing - http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html - is sponsored by and provides links to nothing but pro-animal propaganda. How can you say this is a non-bias, value-free, substantiated view of scientific research???

if they took the time to make a list of 50, it won't be hard to convince me that they are indeed against animal experimentation

but about how biased they are... how biased are the scientists who advocate animal experimentation while earning their money by experimenting on animals?

at least the people on this site don't gain anything with those ideas
whereas the scientists who experiment have their reputation, money and credibility rely on animal experimentation. and they'd lose them if they recognized that alternative methods can be used for the same results without torturing any animals

[36]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, pp360-400.

How the hell do you go about confirming that reference? Even if it was legit, it's over 20 years old.

it's about the bad results of experiments that were done on the use of the drug Domperidone. if they haven't done new ones since 82, i don't see any reason to reedit the book

I'd like to know just exactly where this is substantiated. Laboratories used to use cell culture/mulit-analyte fluorescent detection to measure killer T-cells and CD4 and CD8 surface proteins which is an older methodology than our current rapid flow cytometry, and the two will produce different results when you contast them against a simple quantitation/qualitation by PCR'ing HIV DNA either in an animal or human. The problem wasn't the animals they were using, the problem was the methodologies used

maybe there was a methodology methodology problem, but if what they say was true, there was also one in using animals
i don't find it hard to consider that HIV may replicate at different speeds in humans and animals


i'll be offline for 2 weeks
see you then

 

[Blue_Phlame]

Wow, this topic is still going... I didn't know a simple discussion on eating meat would have went this far.

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

I'm done mucking this thread up with back-and-forth philosophical ideas. Other people see the justification in killing animals because they eat them and they see it just as moral as you see not killing them. You need to remember, the idea of morals is a weak argumental tool because they vary from culture to culture. One person cannot set morals for everyone. Debating who eats what is one thing, but when concrete science is being twisted to suit the perceived morals of another, I will call you on it.

but about how biased they are... how biased are the scientists who advocate animal experimentation while earning their money by experimenting on animals?

at least the people on this site don't gain anything with those ideas
whereas the scientists who experiment have their reputation, money and credibility rely on animal experimentation. and they'd lose them if they recognized that alternative methods can be used for the same results without torturing any animals

Now the alleged desire to test on animals to solely make money is being introduced. Your stretching the argument a little thin with this new perspective. Trust me. You don't devote your life to science because you like torturing animals. This is the most ridiculous spin I've heard in the argument yet.

Facial Muscles Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape; Herbivore: Well-developed; Omnivore: Reduced; Human: Well-developed

Comparing trivial anatomical characteristics doesn't provide insight to anything. It's just taxonomy - plain and simple. I may have only finished three years of med school, but I do know in order to analyze what an animal should eat, you need to observe the actual surface area, type of epithelium and villi found in their intestinal lumen, and physiology. Humans are consistent with all omnivores.

Length of Small Intestine Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length; Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length; Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length; Human: 10 to 11 times body length;

Length means absolutely nothing and this is pure nonsense. I'm very surprised that a doctor would compare animals that evolved to be dependent on a completely different diet with pure anatomy and disregard physiology. Maybe you can write him and ask him why we have canine teeth while we're on the subject of anatomy.

Omnivore: Sharp blades and/or flattened; Human: Flattened with nodular cusps;

Correction - Human: Sharp blades and/or flattened. Boy oh boy, a doctor forgot we all have canines! Good thing he's not a dentist! 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.

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

Drugs, 1982, vol.24, pp360-400.

This reference simply does not exist. I only get the 4 websites (and a few others in spanish but taken from the same site) linked to "50 Disasters Of Animals Testing" when using Google, Yahoo, and other search engines. I was also checking for that book in the archives of The Library Of Health Sciences here at UIC and that book is nowhere to be found. It's a fabricated reference to bolster pro-animals propaganda.

maybe there was a methodology methodology problem, but if what they say was true, there was also one in using animals
i don't find it hard to consider that HIV may replicate at different speeds in humans and animals

There's no "maybe." The truth is that methodologies in the research lab are not always in sync with topical clinical methodologies. 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.

Oh, and by the way..

my point is that since you advocate animal experimentation, you advocate torture

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

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

I'm done mucking this thread up with back-and-forth philosophical ideas. Other people see the justification in killing animals because they eat them and they see it just as moral as you see not killing them. You need to remember, the idea of morals are weak argumental tools because they vary from culture to culture. One person cannot set morals for everyone. Debating who eats what is one thing, but when concrete science is being twisted to suit the perceived morals of another, I will call you on it.

__________________________________________________________

Right! Morals suck because they are culturlally derived. I guess in the end it's decided on your personal ethics.

I do think this debate had come down to endless point counterpoint. The goal has been acheived as far as the main arguments for and against. We know what they are. We can each decide for outselves.

Once you do decide for yourself, all is well in the world. We are only responsible for ourselves and resentment toward others personal ethics is unskillfull.

Blessings to all.

 

[lostpunk5545]

there's so much misguided nonsense on here that I just cannot be arsed to respond intelligently - whatever that says about me I don't care, I've taken part in discussions on vegetarianism before and they never go anywhere.

Exactly.

I agree entirely with the logic of the first poster.

And rather than regurgitating the same argument I've used in at leat 4 other vegetarian vs those who don't care threads I'll just repost the lyrics to the song that made me consider vegetarianism:

PROPAGANDHI LYRICS

"Nailing Descartes To The Wall(Liquid) Meat Is Still Murder"

I speak outside what is recognized as the border between "reason" and "insanity".
But I consider it a measure of my humanity to be written off
by the living graves of a billion murdered lives.
And I'm not ashamed of my recurring dreams about me and a gun and a different species
(hint: starts with "h" and rhymes with "Neuman's")
of carnage strewn about the stockyards, the factories and farms.
Still I know as well as anyone that it does less good
than harm to be this honest with a conscience eased by lies.
But you cannot deny that meat is still murder.
Dairy is still rape.
And I'm still as stupid as anyone, but I know my mistakes.
I have recognized one form of oppression, now I recognize the rest.
And life's too short to make another's shorter- (animal liberation now!).