This is triggered by the PETA posts on the religious board but I'm moving the thread.

So the question I want to ask each of you is whether animals have any rights? Do plants have rights? Or are each subject to absolute dominion and control by any human?

There are god given rights that all of gods creatures are entitled. There are god given rights soley for men. OF course men are afforded more rights for they are created in gods image, and have a greater responsibility to creation than do animals or plants. With responsibility comes rewards, but also the burden of that responsibility.

Travh20 I agree, but one question wasn't the flower, tree , deer wolve created in Gods image also?

Based on my religious beliefs I agree with Trav.

Religion aside, humans still have more rights than animals. I believe animals shouldn't be treated in any sort of abusive manner. However, raising cattle so that people can have a steak is not wrong in my opinion.

I know you leftists probably want equal rights, such as voting rights, etc, for humans, plants and animals but it ain't gonna happen.

Critters have the right not to be abused, tortured, or mistreated by their human cousins. For me, it's part of the "do unto others...." idea. We consume certain critters, so their termination must be acomplished as painlessly and as quickly as possible. Some of what we do for animals should carry over to the way we treat one another: humans will put a critter down in a heartbeat if we believe the amimal is truly suffering & beyond any reasonable expectation of getting healthy again (ie: killing a horse with a broken leg), yet there are those who will keep grandpa or grandma on a variety of machines to keep them breathing. Plants have similar rights to animals, IMO.

Wow. I can't believe the Heehaw Twins acknowledge that animals/plants have SOME rights.

I agree with that.

Okay, here's the million dollar question: What rights do animals/plants have or how do you determine what rights they have?

There are god given rights that all of gods creatures are entitled. There are god given rights soley for men. OF course men are afforded more rights for they are created in gods image, and have a greater responsibility to creation than do animals or plants. With responsibility comes rewards, but also the burden of that responsibility.
Sure, revert to your opium for answers. God must have a pretty shitty image.

Okay, here's the million dollar question: What rights do animals/plants have or how do you determine what rights they have?
Animals have the right to vote, to hold democratic election. They also have the right of free speech, freedom of press and pursuit of happiness. They have the right to bear arms and to revolt against a corupt government.
They at least have the right to live(for a time:D).

THe right to keep and arm bears

So that's the best you all can come up with? A couple of lame jokes? Are you using humor to deflect the necessity of using your brain?

What the hell is your problem Leper? Sounds like you need a little attitude adjustment to me.

In an absolute, objective sense ("objective" meaning not specific to any one group or individual); every being should have the right to live without being molested by others.

Since every animal must consume other life forms to live we have to abandon the absolutist perspective.

For animals to exist killing has to take place.

Let's shift to the subjective perspective ("subjective" meaning relative to an individual or certain group): Humans want to live more than they want other types of beings to live. In other words Humans would not sacrifice our entire population for the good of woodpeckers. If we can coexist, fine. If one of us has to go, it's the woodpeckers.

Wether or not we agree with the objective point of view stated above, we will strive for survival over any other objective, so we will eat.

The fact that we kill and eat is built into the situation of existing in the first place. It's not our fault (blame God if you're the blaming type).

Plants have the same rights as animals but we have the same rights as plants and animals. Some plants are poisonous and kill animals. Animals kill things and eat them.

(Like I was trying to say at the very beginning of this subject many posts ago, Eating the parts of plants they mean for us to eat is the only completely moral way to live. Some animals eat only fruit.
Eating leaves and bark is not as bad as eating seeds, but these acts are all harmful to the plant to some degree.

I AM NOT TRYING TO ADVOCATE LIVING ON FRUIT ONLY. I AM JUST STATING THAT VEGETARIANS ARE NOT MORE ETHICAL BECAUSE THEY EAT ONLY PLANTS.)

Very well put, Ed.

Animal Rights Leader Wants to Be Barbecued


Apr 25, 9:14 am ET

By Francois Murphy
LONDON (Reuters) - The leader of a prominent U.S.-based animal rights group said she had drawn up a will directing that her flesh be barbecued and her skin used to make leather products in protest at man's ill-treatment of animals.

Ingrid Newkirk, 53, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said on Thursday she had chosen to donate her body to her organization for use in a variety of startling protests.

Newkirk also suggested her feet be removed and made into umbrella stands similar to those made from elephant feet that she had seen as a child.

"I want to find ways to have my work live on when I'm gone and this has been my first idea. I will make a stir when I am long in the ground," Newkirk told Reuters.

A PETA spokesman said Newkirk held British and U.S. citizenship and a copy of her will would be kept in both countries.

In the document she also suggests her liver be vacuum-packed and sent to France to be used in a campaign to persuade shoppers not to buy foie gras, made from the livers of force-fed ducks and geese.

"We are in the business of getting people to think about what happens to animals," she said.

"When they go to the grocery store and buy foie gras in a tin, there is absolutely no thought of the geese. If my liver makes people talk about the issues then some good will come of it."

Newkirk said she had not heard of anyone making similar arrangements in their will.

"We hope it will start a trend," she said, adding that she had received a letter from a person interested in using their remains to promote vegetarianism.

But one body part listed in the will is not protest or animal related. It says a small part of her heart should be buried near the Hockenheim Formula One racing circuit in Germany, preferably near the Ferrari pits.

"I love Formula One. I love Michael Schumacher, and I thought I would have a little bit of personal indulgence there," she said. "But it's not without a connection to animals because he actually signed a letter for us against experiments on monkeys in Germany."

I think I'll do almost the same. The main organs go to the needy, the rest food for you!

So that's the best you all can come up with? A couple of lame jokes? Are you using humor to deflect the necessity of using your brain?
Sorry, it seems its a serious topic to you. Look at ed's post:D.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
In an absolute, objective sense ("objective" meaning not specific to any one group or individual); every being should have the right to live without being molested by others.

Since every animal must consume other life forms to live we have to abandon the absolutist perspective.

For animals to exist killing has to take place.

Let's shift to the subjective perspective ("subjective" meaning relative to an individual or certain group): Humans want to live more than they want other types of beings to live. In other words Humans would not sacrifice our entire population for the good of woodpeckers. If we can coexist, fine. If one of us has to go, it's the woodpeckers.

Wether or not we agree with the objective point of view stated above, we will strive for survival over any other objective, so we will eat.

The fact that we kill and eat is built into the situation of existing in the first place. It's not our fault (blame God if you're the blaming type).

Plants have the same rights as animals but we have the same rights as plants and animals. Some plants are poisonous and kill animals. Animals kill things and eat them.

(Like I was trying to say at the very beginning of this subject many posts ago, Eating the parts of plants they mean for us to eat is the only completely moral way to live. Some animals eat only fruit.
Eating leaves and bark is not as bad as eating seeds, but these acts are all harmful to the plant to some degree.

I AM NOT TRYING TO ADVOCATE LIVING ON FRUIT ONLY. I AM JUST STATING THAT VEGETARIANS ARE NOT MORE ETHICAL BECAUSE THEY EAT ONLY PLANTS.)

Well, I commend the thoughtful perspective.

However, I disagree. Vegetarians are more ethical than meateaters. I've written this perspective once before I think but I don't think anyone read it so....

The reason for my disagreement is based on how I value plants and animals, which in turn is based on some education in ecology. Basically, plants' and animals' values should be based on how much energy is necessary to create the plant and animal. For instance, a blue whale's life outweighs an ameoba's life since the energy expenditure necessary to grow an adult whale is enormous compared to that necessary to create a microbe (if you'd like me to explain the energy costs, I will. Otherwise, I'll spare you a lengthy expanation).

With that in mind, plants are gram-for-gram worth less than animals. That’s because plants get all of their energy directly from the source (sunlight) and thus grow much more efficiently than animals. Hence, if you kill and eat plants instead of animals, you are supported by less energy than a person who eats animals. This allows more energy to be spent on other lifeforms. And presuming you value life, you are a better person for eating plant material instead of animal material.

Does that make sense to anyone other than me?

It makes sense, but for everything to follow the "energy" thing, you'd upset the balance, the world would be overflooded by animals, and we'd all sufocate!*extemism rules!*

Eh, meat tastes good, just remove the damn torture they go through, and I'll be happier. But I'll never go full vegitarian.

Hehe, Leper. What about this! Let's say that we all decided we were going to eat more plants and less animals. As a result, there would be less demand on animals. Some ranchers (all if you had your way) that raise livestock for meat consumption would be put out of business. As a result, domesticated animals that are bred for meat would be useless and probably would likely go extinct.

The fact is that, at this time, there is plenty of "energy." If there were a lack of energy, food prices would start soaring, and then we would have to look at doing something like what you are talking about, Leper. But that isn't the problem we have today. Unless we want to just practice for that scenario, I see no reason for us to become vegetarians.

“Hehe, Leper. What about this! Let's say that we all decided we were going to eat more plants and less animals. As a result, there would be less demand on animals. Some ranchers (all if you had your way) that raise livestock for meat consumption would be put out of business. As a result, domesticated animals that are bred for meat would be useless and probably would likely go extinct. “

Um. These ranchers the raise live stock could make a transition to farming plants. These animals weren’t always bred by humans and they didn’t go extinct so why now?

“I see no reason for us to become vegetarians.”

Besides the fact several thousand (reliable) health journals agree vegetarianism is a very healthy diet and is high recommended.

STK....

*sigh* Hey bro, did you read this thread at all? It looks to me like you just skipped the entire conversation. You TOTALLY missed my point. Leper was taking the position that it was better to be a vegetarian than a meat eater because it saved more energy, i.e. life. I'm simply pointing out that if we all became vegetarians, livestock would be useless and would go extinct. So would that still make you a "better person?"

And by the way.....if you really think that ranchers can convert their knowledge of ranching over to plants, you out of your league on this topic. If you don't understand that, then maybe you can understand that you can't usually use the same land for plants that you can for animals. Capice?

And don't derail this thread to tell us what diet is the best.

Don't reply unless you have something useful to add, thanks.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Hehe, Leper. What about this! Let's say that we all decided we were going to eat more plants and less animals. As a result, there would be less demand on animals. Some ranchers (all if you had your way) that raise livestock for meat consumption would be put out of business. As a result, domesticated animals that are bred for meat would be useless and probably would likely go extinct.

The fact is that, at this time, there is plenty of "energy." If there were a lack of energy, food prices would start soaring, and then we would have to look at doing something like what you are talking about, Leper. But that isn't the problem we have today. Unless we want to just practice for that scenario, I see no reason for us to become vegetarians.

Well, this might be true if the entire population turned strictly vegetarian overnight. But that's not going to happen. If people other than "treehuggers" were to buy into my perspective, it would surely be a slow multiyear conversion. Ranchers might go out of business but the transition wouldn't be so dramatic so as to be traumatizing. Besides, economic benefits would be roughly equal to the harms since you would create as much business for farmers as you would cost ranchers.

This is admittedly a digression, but I've never considered preserving outmoded jobs a good reason to act in a certain way. Progress always costs somebody their job. That doesn't mean progress is a bad thing. For instance, when cars became popular I'm sure there were a lot of horse-buggy drivers that had to find new work. Does that make the advent of the automobile a bad thing? Of course not. So it would be with diets involving less meat. Maybe it would cost some ranchers their jobs, but our society has a substantially larger interest in becoming more energy efficient.

Furthermore, just because we stop growing certain animals for food would not make them go extinct. Cattle for example? Well, first, they'd still be useful for other purposes, such as leather and milk. Second, there's plenty of bovine creatures that survive in the wild, I'm sure cattle could adjust.

Now, it sounds like you would debate whether there is a benefit to vegetarianism. You say "The fact is that, at this time, there is plenty of "energy."" I would challenge this statement. We have species of animals going extinct daily because they are getting pushed out by homo sapiens. We've already fried a substantial portion of the planet's biomass-loaded rain forests and replaced them with biomass-depleted grasslands. That's because, basically, the Earth will forever have a limited supply of energy to grow and feed life, and more and more of that energy is being redirected to support man.

The less meat we eat, the more life the planet can support.

First of all, heh, I don't know where you guys are getting this, but I am ABSOLUTELY NOT defending ranchers jobs. I'm simply saying that turning vegetarian is not good for animals! Lol!!! This sounds silly, but we were debating if being a vegetarian meant that you cared more about life. I'm simply disproving this.

And you are missing my point when you are talking about using cattle for something besides meat. You are still losing a LOT of demand for livestock. Their populations will drastically decrease, as their usefulness will dwindle. You should consider other livestock besides cattle, which have multiple uses. Pigs for example, or fowl. And do you really think cattle could survive without care? Absolutely no way, heh, I'm surprised you said that.

Now the rainforest thing....you have me there! But that's a unique problem in one particular area of the world. The people there are trying to make a good living, and don't care about the rain forest. That's a whole other can o worms. But really, that should be another thread, if that's what you are trying to save.

The argument FOR vegetarianism is extremely compelling. The whole "biomass" thing is great.

However, Americans use as much energy as blue whales and the least amount of it is what we eat. Vegetarians use as much energy as blue whales (cars, electricity, buildings...).

Originally posted by Karankawa
And by the way.....if you really think that ranchers can convert their knowledge of ranching over to plants, you out of your league on this topic. If you don't understand that, then maybe you can understand that you can't usually use the same land for plants that you can for animals. Capice?

And don't derail this thread to tell us what diet is the best.

Don't reply unless you have something useful to add, thanks.

The human pop. isn't going to be vegetarian over night so as people turn vegetarian ranchers can slower convert there knowledge to grow plants... its pretty simple...

I am not derailing this thread and actually a vegetarian diet is better so eat me...

Umm I'll reply to anything I please... thanks

"I am not derailing this thread and actually a vegetarian diet is better so eat me..."
Are you claiming to be plant, or a perverted Diety?

LMAO, es347! :D

Welcome to 'Veggieburg'


Apr 29, 9:36 am ET

By Dave Graham
HAMBURG (Reuters) - The German port of Hamburg has been offered $10,500 to change its name to "Veggieburg" by animal rights activists who are unhappy about the city's association with hamburgers.

"Hamburg could promote animal welfare and court sympathy for animals by changing its name to Veggieburg," the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wrote in a letter sent to Hamburg Mayor Ole von Beust on Monday.

The German chapter of PETA, which claims 750,000 members worldwide, said the organization would give Hamburg's childcare facilities 10,000 euros worth of vegetarian burgers if the city changed its name.

But city officials in Hamburg, Germany's second largest city which traces its roots the ninth century, were unmoved.

"I cannot afford to waste my time with this. I don't even want to look at nonsense like this," said Klaus May, a city government spokesman. "But that doesn't mean we Hamburgers don't have a sense of humor."

In its letter, PETA said the name Hamburg conjured up images of "unhealthy beef patties made of pulverized dead cattle.

"Millions of people fall ill each year with fatal ailments like heart disease, cancer, strokes and diabetes from eating hamburgers," PETA said in the letter obtained by Reuters.

The original "hamburger steak," a dish made of ground beef, traveled west with German migrants to the United States in the 19th century.

The first mention of "hamburgers" appeared on a menu in a New York restaurant in 1834. Some historians trace its origins to a minced beef sandwich once popular with sailors in Hamburg.

The city name "Hamburg" comes from the old Saxon words "ham" (bay) and "burg" (fortress).

PETA recently made a similar offer to the U.S. town of Hamburg, New York. But their $15,000 bid was rejected.

!

Originally posted by Karankawa
First of all, heh, I don't know where you guys are getting this, but I am ABSOLUTELY NOT defending ranchers jobs. I'm simply saying that turning vegetarian is not good for animals! Lol!!! This sounds silly, but we were debating if being a vegetarian meant that you cared more about life. I'm simply disproving this.

And you are missing my point when you are talking about using cattle for something besides meat. You are still losing a LOT of demand for livestock. Their populations will drastically decrease, as their usefulness will dwindle. You should consider other livestock besides cattle, which have multiple uses. Pigs for example, or fowl. And do you really think cattle could survive without care? Absolutely no way, heh, I'm surprised you said that.

Now the rainforest thing....you have me there! But that's a unique problem in one particular area of the world. The people there are trying to make a good living, and don't care about the rain forest. That's a whole other can o worms. But really, that should be another thread, if that's what you are trying to save.

"I'm simply saying that turning vegetarian is not good for animals!"

Think about that statement for a moment. Do you really want to try to make this argument?

As for the "rainforest thing," I'm afraid that problem is not isolated to "one particular area of the world." First, if you acknowledge the greenhouse effect, then you must recognize the global implications of destroying rainforests. If you don't recognize the greenhouse effect, there's other concerns you must acknowledge. For instance, the extinction of species associated with rain forests is, to oversimply, not a good thing for the entire planet.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
The argument FOR vegetarianism is extremely compelling. The whole "biomass" thing is great.

However, Americans use as much energy as blue whales and the least amount of it is what we eat. Vegetarians use as much energy as blue whales (cars, electricity, buildings...).

Alright, I'm glad someone's actually entertaining my perspective!

As for the second part of your post....Well, I'm not going to deny that Americans suck up a helluvalot of energy through behavior other than eating habits. However, nearly all of that energy comes from fossil fuel, nuclear, and other fuel sources that man has tapped into. Our eating habits involve energy directly invested in life, which is the most valuable kind IMO.

As for the "rainforest thing," I'm afraid that problem is not isolated to "one particular area of the world."

It's not? Is there another rain forest besides the one in South America that has parts being razed in favor of farmland? If so, where? And I have no idea why the greenhouse effect is in this conversation, or how it relates to whether we should be vegetarians or not.

Hehe, and I see what you're saying about vegetarianism isn't good for animals, but you're not seeing the whole picture. Yes, it is good for livestock. See my post above for that point.

Originally posted by Karankawa
It's not? Is there another rain forest besides the one in South America that has parts being razed in favor of farmland? If so, where? And I have no idea why the greenhouse effect is in this conversation, or how it relates to whether we should be vegetarians or not.

Hehe, and I see what you're saying about vegetarianism isn't good for animals, but you're not seeing the whole picture. Yes, it is good for livestock. See my post above for that point.


Well, the major greenhouse gas is CO2. Guess which gas rainforests lunch on? South America makes the headlines for destroying rainforest but just about all rainforests are being destroyed to one degree or another. If you want specific examples, I believe they're plowing through em pretty quickly in Indonesia and SE Asia.

I see what you're trying to say about vegetarianism being bad for animals...I think. It makes a little sense, but I think you'd be hard pressed to make that argument pass the "red-face" test. Basically, you're claiming that, by growing cattle (and other meat producing animals), we're actually promoting their species right? Well, I concede cattle would not be nearly as plentiful in the face of prevalent vegetarianism. Whether that's bad for the species I think it's debatable. But either way it's a moot point since farmland once reserved for cattle would be inhabited by other lifeforms. That trade off alone is worth it.

One suggestion there you 2: get rid of the hog farms first. They stink the worst, and the environmental impact is devistating.

Well, Es347, where would you live then? :P

farmland once reserved for cattle would be inhabited by other lifeforms.

Most of the farmland inhabited by livestock would be unused anyhow. I think this idea is pointless at this time. It's a good idea for when we do have land shortages, but we're just not there. Not yet anyhow.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Well, Es347, where would you live then? :P



Most of the farmland inhabited by livestock would be unused anyhow. I think this idea is pointless at this time. It's a good idea for when we do have land shortages, but we're just not there. Not yet anyhow.

So if the land isn't used by man, it's worthless eh? Typical human.

Right, Karan. While the U.S. has a population of about 300 million, the population density, if I recall correctly, is some 80 people per mi².

So if the land isn't used by man, it's worthless eh?

No, didn't say that. I just don't see what the difference is between having acres and acres of fields sitting there doing nothing and having some cattle graze on it while it's sitting there.

Karankawa........
in yer ear.

Originally posted by Karankawa
No, didn't say that. I just don't see what the difference is between having acres and acres of fields sitting there doing nothing and having some cattle graze on it while it's sitting there.

So you don't understand how a rainforest, for example, is better land use than putting land to use as grazing ground for cattle?

Man, you should have made this topic about ways to save rainforests instead of about how people should be vegetarians!!!!

I've already conceded to you that tearing down rainforests isn't kosher. I'm not for destroying any unique habitats for us. Hey, once rain forests and other unique habitats are the only thing left, then I'll become a vegetarian with ya!

My entire point is that vegetarians are more ethical because their eating habits preserve more life than meat-eaters.

And yes, the best example of this life preservation comes in the form of keeping rainforests from being razed in favor of agricultural ecosystems.

Why is this such a concern? I believe, due to the permanent nature of the damage, that the destruction of rain forests is one of the greatest sins of humanity. Why is it being destroyed? So we can feed ourselves inefficiently.

Of course, then comes the problem of how to curb population growth, but that's a whole new can o' worms.

Originally posted by Leper
My entire point is that vegetarians are more ethical because their eating habits preserve more life than meat-eaters.

And yes, the best example of this life preservation comes in the form of keeping rainforests from being razed in favor of agricultural ecosystems.

Why is this such a concern? I believe, due to the permanent nature of the damage, that the destruction of rain forests is one of the greatest sins of humanity. Why is it being destroyed? So we can feed ourselves inefficiently.

Of course, then comes the problem of how to curb population growth, but that's a whole new can o' worms.

So vegetarians are better than anyone else, they are more ethical, shut the hell up leper. You are an idiot. It all goes back to the liberal ideology of lets see who can care the most about the most things. Its stupid. Liberals want everyone to live like animals except themselves, the natives cant cut down parts of the jungle (yes, it is a jungle, not a "rain forest") to make their lives better becasue some highbrow intellectual liberal elite in the US doesnt like the idea. Everyone should suffer to preserve the earth except for the liberals, who can fly their planes and drive in their limos to idiotic seminars to talk about how much they "care".

And just to set you straight, in the ocean there are microscopic plants that float around on the surface and soak up far more Co2 than the rainforests ever could. No one tells you that the ocean cleans more CO2 out of the atmosphere in a day then all the rainforests in the world do in a year.

Stop phuqing!! Everybody just stop phuqing!! There's way to many people here already. Never mind the ethics of vegi vs carni, never mind the jungle vs rain forest dance, we must address population control or we're just going to run out of room. Then we're phuqued.

Did you know that we could fit the entire population of the earth into texas with 1000 square feet of room for everyone? its not the amount of people, its the design of the cities man.

How high do you want to stack them?

no, thats ground floor man.

Originally posted by Leper
Alright, I'm glad someone's actually entertaining my perspective!

As for the second part of your post....Well, I'm not going to deny that Americans suck up a helluvalot of energy through behavior other than eating habits. However, nearly all of that energy comes from fossil fuel, nuclear, and other fuel sources that man has tapped into. Our eating habits involve energy directly invested in life, which is the most valuable kind IMO.

True.

Originally posted by Travh20
So vegetarians are better than anyone else, they are more ethical, shut the hell up leper. You are an idiot. It all goes back to the liberal ideology of lets see who can care the most about the most things. Its stupid. Liberals want everyone to live like animals except themselves, the natives cant cut down parts of the jungle (yes, it is a jungle, not a "rain forest") to make their lives better becasue some highbrow intellectual liberal elite in the US doesnt like the idea. Everyone should suffer to preserve the earth except for the liberals, who can fly their planes and drive in their limos to idiotic seminars to talk about how much they "care".

And just to set you straight, in the ocean there are microscopic plants that float around on the surface and soak up far more Co2 than the rainforests ever could. No one tells you that the ocean cleans more CO2 out of the atmosphere in a day then all the rainforests in the world do in a year.

"Set me straight"? lol. This from a plumber....er, hydrographer? My undergrad degree is in Environmental Science. No, that doesn't make me the end all and be all of information relating to the environment, but I have little doubt I know more about it than you.

Where'd you get your info, a Dubya Anti-Environment rally? Like most ignorant people, I'm sure you latched on to a factoid from some environmentalist/anti-environmentalist piece of propaganda that twists a statistic so unscrupulously that it should be a crime.

But yes, the world's phytoplankton ("the microscopic plants that float around on the surface"...they can operate below the surface too) are surely a larger contributer to CO2 consumption than the world's rainforests since oceans take up so much space. I'd challenge the ratio of over 365 to 1, but I can't since you wouldn't dare revealing a source. Acre-for-acre though, rain forests consume more CO2 than any other biome. And, unlike ocean biomes, we as humans exercise a great degree of control over this biome. Don't call me an idiot, call these guys idiots:

(had a link to a nice scientific paper on the subject, but I fudged the link somehow......but they're out there. Look it up your self)

They've done the research. Have you? I guarantee you'll be hard-pressed (to put it mildly) to find anyone who isn't ignorant who'll disagree with me.

I have no doubt I'm going to change your opinion of course; that would require you to open your mind. But I feel an obligation to refute challenges to my arguments, and for once you put more thought in the challenge beyond your typical 4-year old debating techniques of "You're stupid. I'm not listening to you" or "Oh yeah! Well, you mispelled a word!"

well, my degree is in environmental science too, and I am not a plumber. I monitor and measure rivers and reservoirs for a scientific federal agency called the US Geological Survey. I am glad you agree that the ocean does more CO2 consmption then the jungle. At least you are not totally brainwashed into thinking the jungle is the happiest place on earth, next to the arctic wasteland that is.

Originally posted by Travh20
well, my degree is in environmental science too, and I am not a plumber. I monitor and measure rivers and reservoirs for a scientific federal agency called the US Geological Survey. I am glad you agree that the ocean does more CO2 consmption then the jungle. At least you are not totally brainwashed into thinking the jungle is the happiest place on earth, next to the arctic wasteland that is.

Really? I find that hard to believe. If that's true, I wish you'd put some of that education to work.

Yes, I really do, you dont have to believe it, you dont believe anything I say anyway. The only reason you say to put some of that education to work is becasue you dont agree with me, the biggest idiot in the wold could come in here and agree with you and you wouldnt say anything about his education, you would give an "amen brother!"

Originally posted by Travh20
Yes, I really do, you dont have to believe it, you dont believe anything I say anyway. The only reason you say to put some of that education to work is becasue you dont agree with me, the biggest idiot in the wold could come in here and agree with you and you wouldnt say anything about his education, you would give an "amen brother!"

Lol. Why wouldn't I say "amen, brother!" to someone who agreed with me? To do otherwise would mean I don't believe my own argument, no?

What the hell do you think I said? man your dense.

Nope, Travh. I don't believe you. Well, maybe you paid some spammer $2K for a fake degree from a fake college. What courses did you have to take to get your degree?

I tool all the earth sciences, geology, meteorology, biology, all the same things you did. I bet you dont believe I am a combat veteran of Somaila and Haiti capmpaings with the 10th mountain division either do you?

Hi, my degree is not in environmental science but I don't give a rats ass if you guys have one or not, because my argument is better than both of yours. :)

My entire point is that vegetarians are more ethical because their eating habits preserve more life than meat-eaters.

And yes, the best example of this life preservation comes in the form of keeping rainforests from being razed in favor of agricultural ecosystems.

Okay, it looks to me like you are a little confused about why the people in Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia and wherever else are cutting down rainforests. Yes, they are cutting down the forests because they want to use the land for agriculture, but this is for economic purposes. They aren't cutting the forests down because the people of the world are big meat gluttons, and there aren't enough farms/ranches. Essentially, this is happening because they are poor. Because they are in poor contries, the governments lack the resources to respond to the rapid destruction of their forests. Poor farmers and their families depend on the forests to survive; They use the trees for firewood and the land for agricultural space. They lack the information and education on sustainable use of their resources and probably just don't know any better.

Again, focusing on the rainforest is wrong. Go another direction with this, Leper. Even if we were all already vegetarians, rainforest would still be endangered.

Originally posted by Travh20
I tool all the earth sciences, geology, meteorology, biology, all the same things you did. I bet you dont believe I am a combat veteran of Somaila and Haiti capmpaings with the 10th mountain division either do you?

No, no, you seem a perfect fit for the army. I completely believe that. That would explain how you somehow managed to get an education too...

I swear there's no excuse for anyone in this country not to able to get an education if they want to.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Hi, my degree is not in environmental science but I don't give a rats ass if you guys have one or not, because my argument is better than both of yours. :)



Okay, it looks to me like you are a little confused about why the people in Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia and wherever else are cutting down rainforests. Yes, they are cutting down the forests because they want to use the land for agriculture, but this is for economic purposes. They aren't cutting the forests down because the people of the world are big meat gluttons, and there aren't enough farms/ranches. Essentially, this is happening because they are poor. Because they are in poor contries, the governments lack the resources to respond to the rapid destruction of their forests. Poor farmers and their families depend on the forests to survive; They use the trees for firewood and the land for agricultural space. They lack the information and education on sustainable use of their resources and probably just don't know any better.

Again, focusing on the rainforest is wrong. Go another direction with this, Leper. Even if we were all already vegetarians, rainforest would still be endangered.

Do you not admit that vegetarianism reduces the demand for land to be designated for agricultural purposes?

Yes.

But let me reiterate this, even though I said it earlier. Even though your plan seems like it would work and less land would be used for agriculture, we are a long ways from needing to take action of this sort. And it does not save rainforests.

If you want to save rainforests, find a way to give the poor farmers in Indonesia, Brazil, et al, another way to make a living. If you tell them that they cannot chop the rainforests down to raise cattle, they'll chop it down for crops. Strictly a money thing there.

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet you dont believe I am a combat veteran of Somaila and Haiti capmpaings with the 10th mountain division either do you?
Hey Travh20 I was also stationed up in Fort Drum with the 10th mountain division. My father was up there back in the late 40's early 50's, that is when they called it Camp Drum.

As far as your guys argument about what schooling you have had, WHO GIVES A SH**, I'm not trying to be an a-hole it is nice that you went to college an all, but who cares and besides how can you prove it? I could tell you I am the Prince of East Bumble Fu** Egypt, who cares....... You two sound like little kids My Daddy is tougher then your Daddy............

Now back too the veg thing, Wasn't there a study done that proved meat eaters are smarter then veg eaters? If so then how would being a veg. be better? We are human and I think we need alittle bit of everything to keep a balanced diet. Another thing alot of forest are being destroyed just for the wood. Some countrys have wood that we don't, or if we have it it isn't very much, so we go to other countrys and buy up there wood just so we can have a nice table, or night stand.

Originally posted by mad dog
Hey Travh20 I was also stationed up in Fort Drum with the 10th mountain division. My father was up there back in the late 40's early 50's, that is when they called it Camp Drum.

As far as your guys argument about what schooling you have had, WHO GIVES A SH**, I'm not trying to be an a-hole it is nice that you went to college an all, but who cares and besides how can you prove it? I could tell you I am the Prince of East Bumble Fu** Egypt, who cares....... You two sound like little kids My Daddy is tougher then your Daddy............

Now back too the veg thing, Wasn't there a study done that proved meat eaters are smarter then veg eaters? If so then how would being a veg. be better? We are human and I think we need alittle bit of everything to keep a balanced diet. Another thing alot of forest are being destroyed just for the wood. Some countrys have wood that we don't, or if we have it it isn't very much, so we go to other countrys and buy up there wood just so we can have a nice table, or night stand.

Well, Insano-hick challenged whether I knew what I was talking about so I brought up some of my education, which seemed relevant to my credability. He did likewise (I still am in shock). I apologize if that came off as a pissing contest.

As for your study, I've never heard of it. I have a feeling nutritionalists would not be recommending that we eat a lot more vegetables if such a study were legitimate though.

As for destruction of forest for wood, I don't deny that occurs but I'm focusing forest (actually I'm just using rainforests as my example) destroyed in favor of agriculture for the purposes of this debate.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Yes.

But let me reiterate this, even though I said it earlier. Even though your plan seems like it would work and less land would be used for agriculture, we are a long ways from needing to take action of this sort. And it does not save rainforests.

If you want to save rainforests, find a way to give the poor farmers in Indonesia, Brazil, et al, another way to make a living. If you tell them that they cannot chop the rainforests down to raise cattle, they'll chop it down for crops. Strictly a money thing there.

Well, supposedly species are going extinct daily NOW. That means we need to take precautions NOW. I think our differences lie in the fact that you care only about the effect on humans, and I care about the effects of agriculture on life in general.

As for your argument that the people are poor so they're gonna farm cause they have no other options, I think you're completely ignoring the law of supply and demand. I really don't see how you can say that. What else can they do? Well, I don't live in Brazil so I can't expound on their options. I'm sure they can farm crops instead of raise cattle, which uses less land, and thus would require less habitat destruction. Either way, this is a microargument. The first thing that can be done is reduce the demand for food; changes WILL follow.

I have another question, don't the American people waste more then they actually use? How much crap is in the stores that we don't need? Potato chips, dip, soda, different types of meat rolls, etc... Maybe we should attack waste, before we attack vegetables, or meat. We have PETA they hate meat eaters because they say that it is a waste and there is no need for it. Well I'm going to form my own group PAJF people against junk food :D Save a potato eat a cow. Save a person from a heart attack blow up a lays truck

That's a whole new issue. Yes, I think we have a bigger problem w/ waste and yes, I think that needs to be addressed.

Thanks Leper, one question do you eat meat? I'm not getting on your case I just want to know...................

I do I'm afraid. Although I support the ideology, I'm only a wanna-be vegetarian. The problem is I don't like vegetables much:)

Whatever it's worth I try to avoid meat....I figure it's a start.

Also, I hate it when vegetarians expect all non-vegetarians to suit their meals to vegetarians, so I expect I'll never be a "true" vegetarian. For example, I'll always be eating turkey on Thanksgiving.

As another note, the argument I've been making applies to eating habits other than just vegetarianism. For instance, I consider it more morally responsible to eat cold-blooded creatures than warm-blooded creatures since cold-blooded creatures produce consumable clories more efficiently than warm-blooded creatures.

It's okay Leper. The fact is that it's human nature to eat both plants and animals.

Yeah, it's also human nature to kill other humans.

Thanks Leper for your responce, I was just curious. I also eat meat I think fish, chicken, turkey are some of the best. I also hunt and I love venison, it is a lean meat. I know some people think hunting deer is wrong, but going to McDonalds and getting a burger off the burger tree is OK. In my opion meat is meat some people eat dog I don't think I would unless I was starving, but I won't put them down for there choices.

I happen to be against hunting just for sport, but I think if you make use of the dead deer/squirrel/whatever i.e. eating it, then it's okay. I can't stand people who hunt and then just leave the carcass in the woods. That is unnecessary killing, whereas killing for food is not morally wrong.

If it weren't for hunters then the deer would over populate and overrun cities. Have you ever hit a deer with a car? Have you ever had a deer trapped in your house? (I haven't but thesde things happen when the deer venture into the human areas for food because there are too many deer for the woods).

People have to hunt deer. That's why the give a liscences and determine the number of deer to be killed in a particular season.

Thus, if you hunt deer, eat the meat. I don't see why they must simply waste good meat, some other people would likely be happy to take the meat, but the quota would still be met.

What about when deer hunt people though?!??!

http://www.spicypictures.com/pictures/alabama_deer_hunting.jpg

Karankawa LMAO :D

Borg you make a good point, it breaks my heart when I see a deer in the ditch missing its head. Like you have said there are alot of programs for people that like to hunt, but don't like the meat. They can always donate it to food programs or they could give it to a neighbor or someone who would eat the meat.