[b:88555b43f4]A Plea For Vegetarianism[/b:88555b43f4]

In today's society, the rights of an animal go only as far as it benefits the consumers in today's economy. There have been those who stated that animals were only created for the purpose of being used in some way by humans. It is this belief that I shall challenge...

Any animal -- whether it is human or non-human, tall or short, mammalian or non-mammalian, male or female, white or black -- is capable of consciousness. By this, I mean there is no canyon seperating humans and non-humans when it comes to suffering. A cow is just as capable of suffering and emotions just as much as a human, just as much as a rat or a pig. What I am trying to say is that there is an inherent trait found within all animals, that we all have a sort of kinship, that we are all fully capable of experiencing the same world, of understanding the same suffering, of knowing what experience is. The Abolitionists who fought against slavery knew this all too well. "Despite the color of skin of any human," they argued, "We are all capable of feeling the same pains, and therefore we are all deserving of rights."

The same can be said of the other movements which worked for a sort of equality. The Women's Suffragists, for example, understood that both females and males are conscious beings, equal in feeling suffering and in feeling joy, and therefore both deserving of rights. If these Civil Liberties movements were right in their ideology -- which I firmly believe that they are -- then to what end can the brutality of eating meat be defended? It is true that the color of a man's skin cannot deny him any rights. It is true that a woman's gender cannot deny her any rights. I hold even further that the quantity of legs a being has cannot deny them any rights! Despite what species, race, gender, or sexuality an animal is from, such characteristics are irrelevant. There is one primary trait held by all animals: consciousness, the capability of feeling suffering. It is for this reason -- the regard and compassion I hold for the lower animals -- that I am a Vegetarian, and it is for this reason that I make a plea for Vegetarianism.

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

I currently eat very little red meat, as I am trying to continue on my weight loss plan....

But now on to my points

That animal would tear you to bits sir. I mean they would shred you down and have you for a snack, and not think twice about it

Eat them before they eat you!

I am not for killing animals for no reason mind ya but we got to eat.

[quote:728d90aee7]Any animal [..] is capable of consciousness. [/quote:728d90aee7]
Any animal? Even insects? worms? spiders?

I strongly doubt your thesis! Please explain why you believe that [b:728d90aee7]every[/b:728d90aee7] animal has a consciousness.

TheComputerGuy...

[quote:053ebb6696]That animal would tear you to bits sir. I mean they would shred you down and have you for a snack, and not think twice about it.[/quote:053ebb6696]

Are you talking about the cow before it was a hamburger, or the chicken before it was poultry, or the pig before it was ham? It's absolutely ridiculous that you brought up such an invalid point. The animals cultivated by the United States agricultural businesses are Vegetarian themselves.

[quote:053ebb6696]Eat them before they eat you![/quote:053ebb6696]

(1) The animals cultivated to be consumed are Vegetarian. (2) Even if it was a problem with cows and pigs running the country side committing massacres, consider the fact that billions of them are bred every year for the sake of consumption, and that their existence is due entirely to humanity.

[quote:053ebb6696]I am not for killing animals for no reason mind ya but we got to eat.[/quote:053ebb6696]

Yes, that is true that humans must eat, however we can live much more healthier if we consume vegetables, grains, and fruits than if we consume the bodies of our fellow creatures. Not only that, but vegetables do not have consciousness. They cannot feel pain or suffering. In this respect, no matter what you do to them, you have cause no harm at all.

Neg...

[quote:053ebb6696]Any animal? Even insects? worms? spiders?

I strongly doubt your thesis! Please explain why you believe that every animal has a consciousness.[/quote:053ebb6696]

Proof that animals are conscious...

[quote:053ebb6696]Charles Darwin - "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals." [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.][/quote:053ebb6696]

[quote:053ebb6696]John William Draper - With Descartes, we must inquire whether the souls of animals be relations of the human soul, less perfect members in the same series of development. We must take account of what we discover in the intelligent principle of the ant, as well as what we discern in the intelligent principle of man. Where would human physiology be, if it were not illuminated by the bright irradiations of comparative physiology? Brodie, after an exhaustive consideration of the facts, affirms that the mind of animals is essentially the same as that of man. Every one familiar with the dog will admit that that creature knows right from wrong, and is conscious when he has committed a fault. Many domestic animals have reasoning powers, and employ proper means for the attainment of ends. How numerous are the anecdotes related of the intentional actions of the elephant and the ape! Nor is this apparent intelligence due to imitation, to their association with man, for wild animals that have no such relation exhibit similar properties. In different species, the capacity and character greatly vary. Thus the dog is not only more intelligent, but has social and moral qualities that the cat does not possess; the former loves his master, the latter her home.

[...]

Du Bois-Reymond makes this striking remark: "With awe and wonder must the student of Nature regard that microscopic molecule of nervous substance which is the seat of the laborious, constructive, orderly, loyal, dauntless soul of the ant. It has developed itself to its present state through a countless series of generations." What an impressive inference we may draw from the statement of Huber, who has written so well on this subject: "If you will watch a single ant at work, you can tell what he will next do!" He is considering the matter, and reasoning as you are doing. Listen to one of the many anecdotes which Huber, at once truthful and artless, relates: "On the visit of an overseer ant to the works, when the laborers had begun the roof too soon, he examined it and had it taken down, the wall raised to the proper height, and a new ceiling constructed with the fragments of the old one."

[...]

Surely these insects are not automata, they show intention. They recognize their old companions, who have been shut up from them for many months, and exhibit sentiments of joy at their return. Their antennal language is capable of manifold expression; it suits the interior of the nest, where all is dark. While solitary insects do not live to raise their young, social insects have a longer term, they exhibit moral affections and educate their offspring. Patterns of patience and industry, some of these insignificant creatures will work sixteen or eighteen hours a day. Few men are capable of sustained mental application more than four or five hours. Similarity of effects indicates similarity of causes; similarity of actions demands similarity of organs. I would ask the reader of these paragraphs, who is familiar with the habits of animals, and especially with the social relations of that wonderful insect to which reference has been made, to turn to the nineteenth chapter of my work on the "Intellectual Development of Europe," in which he will find a description of the social system of the Incas of Peru. Perhaps, then, in view of the similarity of the social institutions and personal conduct of the insect, and the social institutions and personal conduct of the civilized Indian -- the one an insignificant speck, the other a man -- he will not be disposed to disagree with me in the opinion that "from bees, and wasps, and ants, and birds, from all that low animal life on which he looks with supercilious contempt, man is destined one day to learn what in truth he really is." The views of Descartes, who regarded all insects as automata, can scarcely be accepted without modification. Insects are automata only so far as the action of their ventral cord, and that portion of their cephalic ganglia which deals with contemporaneous impressions, is concerned. ["History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science," by John William Draper, chapter 5.][/quote:053ebb6696]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

[quote:af19a5a0a5]Any animal -- whether it is human or non-human, tall or short, mammalian or non-mammalian, male or female, white or black -- is capable of consciousness.[/quote:af19a5a0a5]

I was referring to this line you gave...Any Animals have consciousnss centered around food.

[quote:99a28626e3]I was referring to this line you gave...Any Animals have consciousnss centered around food.[/quote:99a28626e3]

I still don't understand.

Jeremy Bentham - "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for the abandoning of a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" [Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, chapter 17, by Jeremy Bentham.]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

I'm against animal cruelty, but as far as eating animals go most animals eat other animals; why are we cruel to do the same? The cow doesn't know that it's going to be killed when it gets however old they let them get.. It lives a happy life until then and if I was a cow (or other animal) I'd rather be killed by a shot of medicine(or whatever) or by a bullet than being attacked and bleed to death by a lion, etc!

So I don't think that eating meat or killing animals to eat is cruel.

JWB...

[quote:e019e48cd0]I'm against animal cruelty, but as far as eating animals go most animals eat other animals; why are we cruel to do the same?[/quote:e019e48cd0]

It is true that animals eat each other -- however, primates are known to steal from each other, galapagos lizards are known to rape each other, and salamanders are known to cannibalize each other (25% of their diet). Does that mean that imitation is acceptable? Absolutely not. In fact, according to the reasoning that "others do it, therefore we can, too," -- the Neo-Nazi movement is ENTIRELY justified, and the slaughtering of Jews should commence without caprice!

[quote:e019e48cd0]The cow doesn't know that it's going to be killed when it gets however old they let them get.. It lives a happy life until then and if I was a cow (or other animal) I'd rather be killed by a shot of medicine(or whatever) or by a bullet than being attacked and bleed to death by a lion, etc![/quote:e019e48cd0]

Please take no offense when I say this, but you are very ignorant on this subject. The condition that animals are reared in today is appalling. Many pigs are skinned alive, and others are dipped into boiling, scalding water alive. Cows live in cramped, horrible conditions. When they are killed, they are smashed in the head with a crowbar like tool, and often times there is a miss. Not only that, but cows are branded, dehorned, and castrated. Chickens live in horrible conditions: there is no netting provided in barns to prevent foot damage, there is no light, there is crowding, sometimes the growth from the steroids makes them go into convulsions -- sometimes resulting in death. So much crowding, that sometimes the irritability and aggression of the chickens results in cannibalism. If you want to know more about it, check out the book [i:e019e48cd0]Animal Liberation[/i:e019e48cd0] by Peter Singer. If you have Morpheus or another music-download program, try downloading the song "Purina Hall of Fame" by Propagandhi -- in includes audio of an investigation of a meat factory, the horrible and cruel treatment delivered to animals.

Lewis Gompertz - "Who can dispute the inhumanity of the sport of hunting - of pursuing a poor defenceless creature for mere amusement, till it becomes exhausted by terror and fatigue, and of then causing it to be torn to pieces by a pack of dogs? From what kind of instruction can men, and even women, imbibe such principles as these? How is it possible they can justify it? And what can their pleasure in it consist of? Is it not solely in the agony they produce to the animal? They will pretend that it is not, and try to make us believe so too - that it is merely in the pursuit. But what is the object of their pursuit? Is there any other than to torment and destroy?" [Moral Inquiries into the Situation of Man and Brutes, by Lewis Gompertz.]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

I admit I'm ignorant to the topic on how all animals are killed; but frankly I care less, most other animals eat other animals and I dont see a difference. Anyone who has watched lion king knows that there is a "circle of life" and animals live and feed off one another. We are animals by definition and we are desined to eat both meat and vegetables, so oh well.

All though I'm not currently a vegetarian this is one subject I have been educating my self on more and more. I recently have been cutting down on meats, poultry, and dairy products. I have also recently stopped wearing leather, wool, and many other products that were consumed from an animal. I hope to one day become a vegan this is a very hard lifestyle and something I can't just jump into. I am also doing this for my health but more profoundly animal rights. What do I mean by rights? Well it means that animals are not ours to use- for food, entertainment, experimentation, and also clothing. Due to the inability of animals they are usually not capable of choosing to change their behavior, but being a human we have the intelligence to change behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn't. Animals depend on each other to live. We as humans can get the nutrients we need without the consumption of animals. In fact if you give up meats entirely you have a 10% chance of becoming a heart attack patient. Rather than consuming meat on a regular schedule you became 90% more likely to have a heart attack. The picture below shows you how inhuman slaughter houses have become. Note this act of cru laity is being done why the chicken is still living! Also take a look at the living conditions of pigs and chickens! This may not mean a lot considering I still consume meats and other dairy products. But I advise you to become well educated on animal rights. I also ask you all to consider this life-style much like I have and will soon live.

Well that is just plain gross, I usually eat poultry. And I love good red meat sometimes.

But not everyone is like that.

It sometimes gets nasty

@punkerslut:

Nice quotations, but not very convincing.

There have been many experiments showing that insects do NOT act out of intention, such as a very simple one which can even be done at home: Catch a bug, put him into a big box and place two lamps around the box. Now switch on the first lamp and the bug will walk towards it. Switch it off and switch on the second lamp. The bug will now walk towards the new source of light. Switch off the second lamp and switch on the first one ... and so on ...
Do this for some hours and then tell me again that this bug has a consciousness, that he knows what he is doing.

If you want I can tell you more stories prooving that even most mammals do not act with a certain intention.

Don't get me wrong. I do not advocate the torture of animals, but nevertheless, most animals do NOT have a consciousness.

JWB...

[quote:f68b00eac4]I admit I'm ignorant to the topic on how all animals are killed; but frankly I care less, most other animals eat other animals and I dont see a difference.[/quote:f68b00eac4]

APPARENTLY you have failed to read what I had posted...

[quote:f68b00eac4]It is true that animals eat each other -- however, primates are known to steal from each other, galapagos lizards are known to rape each other, and salamanders are known to cannibalize each other (25% of their diet). Does that mean that imitation is acceptable? Absolutely not. In fact, according to the reasoning that "others do it, therefore we can, too," -- the Neo-Nazi movement is ENTIRELY justified, and the slaughtering of Jews should commence without caprice![/quote:f68b00eac4]

Yes, animals eat each other. However, some animals are known to rape and steal from each other. According to your reasoning, it is okay to kill animals because "animals do it to each other." If this is true, then you are stating that imitation is a justifiable ethic. Which can be broadened. "Look, animals eat each other! So I can eat animals!" -- what you have said. "Look, humans rape aech other! So I can rape humans! -- following your logic.

[quote:f68b00eac4]Anyone who has watched lion king knows that there is a "circle of life" and animals live and feed off one another. We are animals by definition and we are desined to eat both meat and vegetables, so oh well[/quote:f68b00eac4]

Humans are not "designed" period. Humanity arose through Evolution and Natural Selection. Furthermore, whether or not something is designed for a purpose does not warrant its usage. A gun is designed to kill. Simply because humans may be designed to eat meat does not mean that we have a right to slaughter animals, any more than the fact that guns are designed to kill does not mean we have a right to shoot humans.

Confused Youth...

Wonderful post.

Neg...

[quote:f68b00eac4]There have been many experiments showing that insects do NOT act out of intention, such as a very simple one which can even be done at home: Catch a bug, put him into a big box and place two lamps around the box. Now switch on the first lamp and the bug will walk towards it. Switch it off and switch on the second lamp. The bug will now walk towards the new source of light. Switch off the second lamp and switch on the first one ... and so on ...
Do this for some hours and then tell me again that this bug has a consciousness, that he knows what he is doing.[/quote:f68b00eac4]

Interesting post. It is true that a bug can be convinced to act, but surely it is out of intention. Intention does not mean doing what is nonconforming of your general behavior. Basically stated, according to your definition of consciousness, humans are not conscious either. As the behavior of humans can easily be predicted, much like a bug or any animal for that matter, and a prediction can have a 100% accuracy if all the important variables are known, thus, neither you or I are conscious. Interesting that you would throw away science's modern confirmations with a few lightbulbs and an insect.

"But, it may be argued, vague sympathy with the lower animals is one thing, and a definite recognition of their 'rights' is another; what reason is there to suppose that we shall advance from the former phase to the latter? Just this; that every great liberating movement has proceeded exactly on these lines. Oppression and cruelty are invariably founded on a lack of imaginative sympathy; the tyrant or tormentor can have no true sense of kinship with the victim of his injustice. When once the sense of affinity is awakened, the knell of tyranny is sounded, and the ultimate concession of 'rights' is simply a matter of time. The present condition of the more highly organized domestic animals is in many ways very analogious to that of the negro slaves of a hundred years ago: look back, and you will find in their case precisely the same exclusion from the common pale of humanity; the same hypocritical fallacies, to justify that exclusion; and, as a consequence, the same deliberate stubborn denial of their social 'rights.' Look back-for it is well to do so-and then look forward, and the moral can hardly be mistaken." - Henry Stephens Salt [Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 1, 1894.]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

You didn't get the point, did you? I am not talking about predictebility. The point is: This bug makes nonsense for hours, even though you say he does this out of intention. But what is this intention, please? He only follows the light, but he doesn't know why he does so. Otherwise he would stop after some seconds.

Please define consciousness.

Neg...

[quote:07b2839ae6="Neg"]
You didn't get the point, did you? I am not talking about predictebility. The point is: This bug makes nonsense for hours, even though you say he does this out of intention. But what is this intention, please? He only follows the light, but he doesn't know why he does so. Otherwise he would stop after some seconds.

Please define consciousness. [/quote:07b2839ae6]

Interesting. First you declare that animals are not conscious, but then now you are unfamiliar with the definition of consciousness.

Furthermore, whether or not a bug knows why it does something is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not it is conscious.

Consciousness can defined as being aware, sensile, sentient, etc., etc., etc..

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

[quote:82e1975a0e]Interesting. First you declare that animals are not conscious, but then now you are unfamiliar with the definition of consciousness.[/quote:82e1975a0e]
I am indeed familiar with the definition of "consciousness", but in regard to your postings, I had my doubts that you are. That's why I asked you to define it.

[quote:82e1975a0e]Furthermore, whether or not a bug knows why it does something is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not it is conscious. [/quote:82e1975a0e]
WRONG!
It is even very relevant. If a bug does not know why it does something for hours, but simply does it, then it obviously only acts instinctivly. There is no intention behind the action, and no judiciousness, no insight.

[quote:82e1975a0e]Consciousness can defined as being aware, sensile, sentient, etc., etc., etc.. [/quote:82e1975a0e]
If would define it as following:
The state of being able to recognize one's own existence and oneself, and furthermore to connect one's actions, the results and one's experiences with oneself.
In other words:
To know that I exist and that certain actions result in certain modifications which have been caused [b:82e1975a0e]by me[/b:82e1975a0e].

Some more examples why I doubt the consciousness of most animals:
- Place an animal in front of a mirror. Only very few species (humans, apes and maybe few other high mammals) will understand that they are the other animal which they see. Most animals will behave as if there was another individual, a rival.
- If you feed a dog/wolf with a great piece of meat then he will eat until he is not hungry any more. And he will hide the rest in the ground. Logical. If the ground is too hard to dig then he will search a place where the ground is softer and hide the meat there. Logical. But if he cannot find a place to hide it (e.g. because he is imprisoned in a cage with stone or metal ground then he "pretends" to dig, puts the meat down and then "thinks" that the meat has been succesfully hidden. You can now take away the meat even if he lies next to it. You better should have avoided this before he finished his digging; at least if you like your arm.
You see the point? There is no insight, only instinct. He doesn't realize that he hides the meat by digging a hole, he doesn't connect the result with his own actions, with himself.

Neg, as far as consciousness goes....

It is synonymous with aware. See definition here: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=conscious

"Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts."

In this respect, since ants and other insects are fully capable of having emotions and desires, they can be termed as "conscious."

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

Dang! Ants do not even have a brain...

[quote:ae3f8357c9="Neg"]
Dang! Ants do not even have a brain... [/quote:ae3f8357c9]

Perhaps not a brain like other mammals, but since ants are capable of communication, of deduction and basing their actions are reasons, I think it is safe to say they have something similar to a "think organ."

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

[quote:619546f887]Lewis Gompertz - "Who can dispute the inhumanity of the sport of hunting - of pursuing a poor defenceless creature for mere amusement, till it becomes exhausted by terror and fatigue, and of then causing it to be torn to pieces by a pack of dogs? From what kind of instruction can men, and even women, imbibe such principles as these? How is it possible they can justify it? And what can their pleasure in it consist of? Is it not solely in the agony they produce to the animal? They will pretend that it is not, and try to make us believe so too - that it is merely in the pursuit. But what is the object of their pursuit? Is there any other than to torment and destroy?" [Moral Inquiries into the Situation of Man and Brutes, by Lewis Gompertz.[/quote:619546f887]

I was re reading and saw this paragraph I had skipped by, that's about the bigesst idiot I've heard. First off this person is totally ignorant of how sport hunting is done, itleast in North Carolina and around. Dogs are used to track animals and to retrieve them. Dear hunters use the dogs to jump a dear and it runs out into a field and gets shot, the dogs are much slower; in bird hunting a bird is shot and after it's dead the dog retrieves it. If animals truly think and kill each other what's the difference, your points about WW2 are 100% irrelevant because they reffer to canabalism, and crimes; Animals (referring to non humans) dont "hook up" and talk before they have sex so how could a animal rape another, they do what's necessary for their species survival; no rape isnt necessary for human survival. Anywho, I believe that vegetarians probably can get enough nutrients from plants (unless they're real sick and need a lot of nutrients), however why do they have to follow special diets, etc to get enough protein.... Maybe humans weren't really meant to be vegetarians.

Real PETA site - http://mtd.com/tasty/

JWB...

In concernment to the Gompertz quote...

[quote:97af442055]I was re reading and saw this paragraph I had skipped by, that's about the bigesst idiot I've heard. First off this person is totally ignorant of how sport hunting is done, itleast in North Carolina and around. Dogs are used to track animals and to retrieve them. Dear hunters use the dogs to jump a dear and it runs out into a field and gets shot, the dogs are much slower; in bird hunting a bird is shot and after it's dead the dog retrieves it.[/quote:97af442055]

You may wish to take into consideration that Gompertz said this during the early 1800's, where those hunting tactics were enforced. Also, take into consideration modern hunting tactics -- the cruelty of snares and other torture devices.

[quote:97af442055]If animals truly think and kill each other what's the difference, your points about WW2 are 100% irrelevant because they reffer to canabalism, and crimes;[/quote:97af442055]

Although I could be entirely wrong, I fail to recollect talking about World War II.

[quote:97af442055]Animals (referring to non humans) dont "hook up" and talk before they have sex so how could a animal rape another, they do what's necessary for their species survival; no rape isnt necessary for human survival.[/quote:97af442055]

Animals communicate prior to mating -- this happens within [i:97af442055]all[/i:97af442055] animalia. There is a Galapagos lizard that rapes without communication.

[quote:97af442055]Anywho, I believe that vegetarians probably can get enough nutrients from plants (unless they're real sick and need a lot of nutrients), however why do they have to follow special diets, etc to get enough protein.... Maybe humans weren't really meant to be vegetarians.[/quote:97af442055]

Some resources...

[b:97af442055]It takes 21 pounds of protein to feed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. This is less than 5 percent! Frances Moore Lappé refers to it as "a protein factory in reverse!"[/b:97af442055] [Resource: "Diet for a Small Planet" by Frances Moore Lappé (New York: Friends of the Earth/Ballatine, 1971), pp. 4-11. (Revised Edition published in 1982.) Original sources are "The World Food Problem," a Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee (1967); "Feed Situation," February 1970, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and "National and State Livestock-Feed Relationships," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin Number 446, February 1970.]

[b:97af442055]Most estimates conclude that plant foods yield about 10 times as much protein per acre as meat does, and the ratio sometimes goes as high as plant foods yielding 20 times more protein per acre than meat![/b:97af442055] [Resource: Keith Akers "A Vegetarian Sourcebook" (New York: Putnam, 1983), chapter 10. Original sources are: United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975); and C.W. Cook, "Use of Rangelands of Future Meat Production," Journal of Animal Science 45: 1476 (1977). The higher ratio is from "Soybeans," Scientific American, February 1974.]

[b:97af442055]The protein intake of the average American excreeds the generous level recommended by the National Academy of Sciences by 45 percent. Other estimates say that most Americans consume between two and four times as much meat as the body can use. Excess protein cannot be stored. Some of it is excreted, and some may be converted by the body to carbohydrate, which is an expensive way to increase one's crabohydrate intake.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: Francis Moore Lappé, "Diet for a Small Planet," pp. 28-29; see also "The New York Times," October 25, 1974; "Medical World News," November 8, 1974, p. 106.]

[b:97af442055]If a person eats just wheat, rice, and/or potatoes, the only way they will not get enough protein is if they are starving.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: In the first edition of "Diet for a Small Planet" (1971), Frances Moore Lappé emphasized protein complementarity to show that a vegetarian diet can provide enough protein. In the revised edition (New York: Ballantine, 1982) this emphasis has disappeared, replaced by a demonstration that a healthy vegetarian diet is bound to contain enough protein even without complementarity. For another account of the adequacy of plant foods as far as protein is concerned, see Keith Akers, "A Vegetarian Sourcebook," Chapter 2. Original Resources are United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975).]

[b:97af442055]An acre of oats or broccoli produces at least six times more proteins than a field that used animal feed to produce pork, milk, poultry, or beef. The acre of broccoli yields nearly three times as much as pork. Oats produce nearly 25 times as many calories as beef. An acre of broccoli produces 24 times the amount of iron produced by an acre used for beef and an acre of oats produces 16 times the amount of iron as an acre for beef. And an acre used for broccoli produces 5 times more calcium than an acre of land used for milk cows.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: Keith Akers "A Vegetarian Sourcebook" (New York: Putnam, 1983), pp. 90-91. Original sources are: United states Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1979; United States Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975); and C.W. Cook, "Use of Rangelands of Future Meat Production," Journal of Animal Science 45: 1476 (1977). The higher ratio is from "Soybeans," Scientific American, February 1974.]

[b:97af442055]In 1974, Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council estimated that if Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by only 10 percent for one year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption -- enough to feed 60 million people. Don Paarlberg, a former U.S. assistant secretary of agriculture, has said that merely reducing the U.S. livestock population by half would make available enough food to make up the calorie deficit of the nonsocialist, underdevelepod nations nearly four times over.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: Boyce Rensberger, "Curb on U.S. Waste Urged to Help World's Hungry," The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

[b:97af442055]Alan Durning, a researcher at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington D.C., has calculated that one pound of steak from steers raised in feedlots costs five pounds of grain, 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 35 pounds of eroded topsoil. More than a third of North America is taken up with grazing, more than half of U.S. croplands are planted with livestock feed, and more than half of all water consumed in the United States goes to livestock.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: Science News, March 5, 1988, p.153, citing Worldwatch, January/February 1988.]

[b:97af442055]A pound of meat requires 50 times as much water as an equivalent of wheat.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: Keith Akers, "A Vegetarian Source Book," p.100, based on D. Pimental and M. Pimental, "Food, Energy, and Society" (New York: Wiley, 1979), pp. 56, 59, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Nutritive Value of American Foods" (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 1975).] [b:97af442055]Newsweek has described the loss of water in feeding animals when it said, "The water that goes into a 1000 pound steer would float a destroyer."[/b:97af442055] [Resource: "The Browning of America," Newsweek, February 22, 1981, p. 26; quoted by John Robbins, "Diet for a New America" (Walpole, N.H.: Stillpoint, 1987), p. 367.]

[b:97af442055]When meat is eaten, it sits heavily in our stomachs, blocking our digestive processes until, days later, we struggle to excrete it.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: In The Lancet (December 30, 1972), the "mean transit time" of food through the digestive systems of a sample group of nonvegetarians on a Western type of diet was between seventy-six and eighty-three hours; for vegetarians forty two hours. The authors suggest a connection between the length of time the stool remains in the colon and the incidence of cancer of the colon and related disease which have increased rapidly in nations whose consumption of meat has increased but are almost unknown among rural Africans who, like vegetarians, have a diet low in meat and high in roughage.]

[b:97af442055]Gandhi, Leonardo da Vinci, Leo Tolstoy, and George Bernard Shaw lead long, creative lives as Vegetarians. The inhabitants of the Vilcabamba valley in Ecuador live between 123 and 142; these people eat less than an ounce of meat a week. A study of all individuals that lived past 100 in Hungary found that they were largely vegetarian.[/b:97af442055] [Resource: David Davies, "A Shangri-La in Ecuador," New Scientist, February 1, 1973. On the basis of other studies, Raplh Nelson of the Mayo Medical School has suggested that a high protein intake causes us to "idle our metabolic engine at a faster rate" (Medical World News, November 8, 1974, p. 106). This could explain the correlation between longevity and little or no meat consumption.]

Thomas Paine - "I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." [[i:97af442055]The Age of Reason[/i:97af442055], by Thomas Paine, chapter 1.]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

Some more...

Appleby et al. 1999, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 525S:
[b:dfb660a149]A 16-year study of 6000 vegetarians and 5000 non-vegetarians in the UK found that the vegetarians generally had lower LDL cholesterol levels and lower death rates for each of the mortality endpoints studied.[/b:dfb660a149]

Segasothy & Phillips 1999, Q J Med, 92, 531:
[b:dfb660a149]The many health-related effects of vegetarian diets are reviewed, such as the cholesterol-lowering effects, the decreased risk for coronary heart disease, the improvement of the condition of heart patients, and the decreased risk of colon and breast cancers.[/b:dfb660a149]

Kushi et al. 1995, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 1416S:
[b:dfb660a149]Evidence strongly suggests that a high intake of plant-based foods, and a low intake of animal products contributes to the excellent health of Mediterranean populations. The high consumption of red meat in Western diets is associated with increased risks of heart disease, some cancers, and urinary calcium losses likely to contribute to osteoporosis.[/b:dfb660a149]

Kestin et al. 1989, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 280:
[b:dfb660a149]The results of two, fat-modified diets, a lactoovovegetarian one rich in plant-based foods, and another in which 60% of the plant protein was replaced with protein from lean meat, were compared. While both diets lowered cholesterol and blood pressure relative to a high-fat diet, the vegetarian diet had a significantly greater cholesterol-lowering effect than the prudent non-vegetarian diet.[/b:dfb660a149]

Meyer et al. 1997, American Journal of Epidemiology, 145, 117:
[b:dfb660a149]The dietary habits of 19,752 Norwegian women and 20,035 Norwegian men were followed for an average of 11.4 years. An elevated risk of fracture was found in women with a high intake of protein from nondairy animal sources (meat, fish, and eggs) when calcium intake was low.[/b:dfb660a149]

Feskanich et al. 1996, American Journal of Epidemiology, 143, 472:
[b:dfb660a149]A 12-year study of 85,900 women indicated that the consumption of animal protein was associated with an increased risk of fracture. In contrast, no such association was found for the consumption of vegetable protein.[/b:dfb660a149]

Marsh et al. 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 837:
[b:dfb660a149]A study of 1600 lactoovovegetarian and non-vegetarian post-menopausal women confirms the theory that the amount and type of protein consumed affects bone mineral loss after menopause. By 80 years of age, the non-vegetarians had approximately twice the reduction of bone mineral density compared to the vegetarians.[/b:dfb660a149]

Ward & Lopez-Carrillo 1999, American Journal of Epidemiology, 149, 925:
[b:dfb660a149]A study of 220 gastric cancer patients in Mexico city along with a control group from the same area indicated an approximately threefold increased risk of gastric cancer for frequent consumption of both fresh and processed meat. An increased risk of cancer was also found to be associated with frequent consumption of dairy products and fish.[/b:dfb660a149]

Singh & Fraser 1998, American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 761:
[b:dfb660a149]A six-year study of 32,051 members of the Adventist Health Study identified both red meat and white meat consumption as important dietary risk factors for colon cancer.[/b:dfb660a149]

Layton et al. 1995, Carcinogenesis, 16, 39:
[b:dfb660a149]Carcinogenic chemicals known as heterocyclic amines are produced when meat and fish are cooked under normal conditions. An evaluation indicates that the consumption of meat and fish products contributes to human cancer risk.[/b:dfb660a149]

Giovannucci et al. 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 1571:
[b:dfb660a149]The dietary habits of 51529 men, age 40 to 75, were examined to understand the relationship between prostate cancer and dietary fat. There was a clear correlation between an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer and the intake of animal fat, but not vegetable fat.[/b:dfb660a149]

Mann et al. 1997, Heart, 78, 450:
[b:dfb660a149]The physical condition and diets of nearly 11,000 health-conscious men and women, both vegetarian and non-vegetarian, were followed for an average of 13.3 years to investigate dietary determinants of ischaemic heart disease. It was found that saturated animal fat and cholesterol are the primary contributors to ischaemic heart disease.[/b:dfb660a149]

Burr & Butland 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 830:
[b:dfb660a149]A study of 10896 individuals with a special interest in health foods revealed that death due to ischemic heart disease, over the 10 to 12 years followed, was significantly lower in the vegetarians than in the non-vegetarians.[/b:dfb660a149]

Snowdon et al. 1984, Preventive Medicine, 13(5), 490:
[b:dfb660a149]The connection between the meat-consumption habits of 25153 Seventh-day Adventists and fatal ischemic heart disease was assessed over a 20-year period. Meat consumption was positively associated with this disease in both the men and the women. Furthermore, meat consumption by the men between the ages of 45 and 64 gave them a threefold greater risk of the disease compared to vegetarian men of comparable age.[/b:dfb660a149]

Turpeinen 1979, Circulation, 59,1:
[b:dfb660a149]A study conducted in two hospitals over a 12-year period involved replacing dairy fats by vegetable oils to evaluate the effects on mortality from coronary heart disease. A substantial reduction of deaths due to coronary heart disease resulted.[/b:dfb660a149]

Melby et al. 1994, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 103:
[b:dfb660a149]Blood pressure and blood lipid levels were measured and compared for 3 groups of Seventh-day Adventist African-American adults, including vegetarians, "semi-vegetarians" (1 to 3 servings of meat per week), and non-vegetarians. The vegetarian group had the least cases of hypertension and the lowest serum cholesterol.[/b:dfb660a149]

[b:dfb660a149]Diets designed for health and longevity like the Pritikin plan and the McDougall plan are either largely or entirely vegetarian.[/b:dfb660a149] [Resource: N. Pritikin and P. McGrady, "The Pritikin Program for Diet and Exercise" (New York: Bantam, 1980); J.J. McDougall, "The McDougall Plan" (Piscataway, N.J.: New Century, 1983).]

[b:dfb660a149]The 1988 United States Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health cites a major study indicating that the death rate for heart attacks of vegetarians between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four is only 28 percent of the rate for Americans in general in that age group. For older vegetarians the rate of death from heart attacks was still less than half that of nonvegetarians. The same study showed that vegetarians who ate eggs and dairy products had cholesterol levels 16 percent lower than those of meat eaters, and vegans had cholesterol levels 29 percent lower. The report's main recommendations were to reduce consumption of cholesterol and fat (especially saturated fat), and increase consumption of cholesterol and whole grain foods and cereal products, vegetables (including dried beans and peas) and fruits. A recommendation to reduce cholesterol and saturated fat is, in effect, a recommendation to avoid meat (except perhaps chicken from which the skin has been removed), and cream, butter, and all except low-fat dairy products.[/b:dfb660a149] [Resource: "The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).]

[b:dfb660a149]Studies have found a strong connection between breast cancer and meat intake, and also between eating meat, especially beef, and cancer of the large bowel. The American Heart Association has also been recommending, for many years, that Americans reduce their meat intake.[/b:dfb660a149] [Resource: The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

[b:dfb660a149]Many athletes are also Vegetarians. Olympic long-distance swimming champion Murray Rose, the famous Finnish distance runner Paavo Nurmi, basketball star Bill Walton, the "ironman" triathlete Dave Scott, and 400-meter Olympic hurdle champion Edwin Moses were all Vegetarians. Surely, eating meat is not a necessary for being athletic.[/b:dfb660a149]

Pythagoras - "Alas, what wickedness to swallow flesh into our own flesh, to fatten our greedy bodies by cramming in other bodies, to have one living creature fed by the death of another! In the midst of such wealth as earth, the best of mothers, provides, nothing forsooth satisfies you, but to behave like the Cyclopes, inflicting sorry wounds with cruel teeth! You cannot appease the hungry cravings of your wicked, gluttonous stomachs except by destroying some other life." [Pythagoras depicted in "Metamorphoses" by Ovid.]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

I could go copy and paste 10 pages of how if you dont eat meat it will hurt you to, that's not really what matter here anyways; Animals kill and eat other animals all the time, we are animals so oh well, I like cheese burgers.

The raping lizard thing, that's stupid: so the lizard isnt suppose to reproduce? I guess that could be considered rape but it seems very different.

PS how could you prove a venus flytrap has any more awareness than a fly itself? They both appear to act totally on instinct.

[quote:1290bac166]Perhaps not a brain like other mammals, but since ants are capable of communication, of deduction and basing their actions are reasons, I think it is safe to say they have something similar to a "think organ." [/quote:1290bac166]
OK, I give it up. Believe what you want.

But I give you a piece of advice: When you try to convince others to eat less or even no meat and your whole argumentation is based on just one thesis which is furthermore not very plausible then do not be surprised if you don't succeed...

JWB...

[quote:d8d22115aa]I could go copy and paste 10 pages of how if you dont eat meat it will hurt you to, that's not really what matter here anyways;[/quote:d8d22115aa]

I'll have you know that I gathered that information MYSELF -- I did not "copy and paste" it.

Furthermore, I WOULD BE ***HIGHLY*** impressed if you could find more than two resources that state that abstinance from meat is harmful. If you could, I would give you a nickle.

[quote:d8d22115aa]Animals kill and eat other animals all the time, we are animals so oh well, I like cheese burgers. [/quote:d8d22115aa]

I have already refuted this. See here...

[quote:d8d22115aa]It is true that animals eat each other -- however, primates are known to steal from each other, galapagos lizards are known to rape each other, and salamanders are known to cannibalize each other (25% of their diet). Does that mean that imitation is acceptable? Absolutely not. In fact, according to the reasoning that "others do it, therefore we can, too," -- the Neo-Nazi movement is ENTIRELY justified, and the slaughtering of Jews should commence without caprice![/quote:d8d22115aa]

And...

[quote:d8d22115aa]Yes, animals eat each other. However, some animals are known to rape and steal from each other. According to your reasoning, it is okay to kill animals because "animals do it to each other." If this is true, then you are stating that imitation is a justifiable ethic. Which can be broadened. "Look, animals eat each other! So I can eat animals!" -- what you have said. "Look, humans rape aech other! So I can rape humans! -- following your logic.[/quote:d8d22115aa]

Furthermore, you stated....

[quote:d8d22115aa]The raping lizard thing, that's stupid: so the lizard isnt suppose to reproduce? I guess that could be considered rape but it seems very different.[/quote:d8d22115aa]

Reproduction and rape are not the same thing. This is [i:d8d22115aa]very simple[/i:d8d22115aa] logic. Furthermore, the point still remains: whether or not animals rape each other, the question is -- if an animal does something, does that mean that we can do it? If so, then we can copy the actions of any human, as humans are animals. Imitation is NO means for morality.

[quote:d8d22115aa]PS how could you prove a venus flytrap has any more awareness than a fly itself? They both appear to act totally on instinct.[/quote:d8d22115aa]

The difference between science and psuedo-science is that science is based on more than what things appear. Science is based on observation, evidence, and reason. Consciousness arises from a think organ, a brain, something that animals have which plants are bankrupt of.

"For what is it, but the deliberate massacre in cold blood every year of thousands and tens of thousands of tame, hand-reared birds, who are literally driven into the jaws of death and mown dawn in a peculiarly brutal manner?... A perfect roar of guns fills the air, louder tap and yell the beaters, above the din can be heard the heart-rendering cries of wounded hares and rabbits, some of which can be seen dragging themselves away, with both hind legs broken, or turning round and round in their agony before they die. And the pheasants! They are on every side, some rising, some dropping some lying dead, but the greater majority fluttering on the ground wounded, some with both legs broken and a wing, some with both wings broken and a leg, others merely winged, running to hide, others mortally wounded gasping out their last breath of life amidst the fiendish sounds which surround them. And this is called [i:d8d22115aa]sport![/i:d8d22115aa]... Sport in every form and kind is horrible from the rich man's hare-coursing to the poor man's rabbit-coursing. All show the 'tiger' that lives in our natures, and which nothing but a higher civilisation will eradicate." - Lady Florence Dixie [Letter to "Pall Mall Gazette," by Lady Florence Dixie, March 24th, 1892.]

www.punkerslut.com (http://www.punkerslut.com)

For 108,
Punkerslut

I believe it is now time that I leave. However, I leave behind a set of arguments and refutations. For more information, there is always www.punkerslut.com....

>> "What about plants? They're alive, too!"

1. Plants may be alive, but being alive does not mean it deserves rights. Animals deserve rights because they are conscious. They are capable of feeling suffering like any human. It is true that plants are alive, too, but they consist of matter, just like rocks -- it does not mean that either are deserving of rights.

>> "Other animals eat each other. Therefore, we should be allowed to, as well!"

1. It does not matter that animals eat each other. This holds no reflection on morality. Primates are known to steal from each other, salamanders are known to cannibalize each other, and some Galapagos lizards are known to rape each other. However, it does not give us any right to steal, to cannibalize, or to rape other humans. Then, certainly, if animals consume each other, it does not give humans any right to consume animals.
2. It is true that lions and other predators must hunt to kill. However, humans are certainly not in that situation. We do not need to kill other conscious animals to keep ourselves alive. In fact, humans will live longer and survive longer if we STOP eating meat, as proven by numerous studies in science and nutrition. However, lions do not have an option to stop eating meat. If the same situation were for humans, then eating animals would be justified. If a human was trapped on an island with no consumable vegetation, then hunting and killing an animal to consume would be justifiable, as no other option would be present. However, in today's world, we do not need to kill any animals to survive.
3. Consider the fact that the animals that we do cultivate - cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc., etc. - do not kill each other. Therefore, if you truly follow your own reasoning that you eat animals because they consume each other, then you will abstain from consuming the Vegetarian animals and thus stop eating beef, poultry, and ham.

>> "What about the needed protein and other nutrition?"

-- See stats.

>> "Animals taste good, though, and therefore I have no reason to reform my ways."

1. Whether or not an animal tastes good is not justification for killing it. If all our actions were motivated by what pleases us, then rape and murder would be justifiable. In this sense, I say that the taste of flesh does not justify murder any more than an orgasm justifies rape.

>> "God stated that animals could be consumed by humans!"

1. According to some religions, it is true that animals were created to be consumed by humans. However, many of those same religions stated that African humans were created to be enslaved by whites and that women were made to be submissive to males. Whether or not you belong to this religion ("Christianity"), its existence serves the purpose of demonstrating very well the fact that religion justifies nothing but cruelty. A religion may state that it is acceptable to rape (for example, see Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The fact is, whether or not someone's imaginary friend allows something does not mean at all that it is really justified.

>> "Animals are dumb and humans are smart. We have the right to kill and eat them!"

1. Intelligence is not a method for determining who deserves rights and who does not deserve rights. It would be rather unfair for anyone to say that humans with an IQ lower than 80 should be slaves. Similarly, should mentally retarded humans, the insane, and the senile be subjected to being our food? To state that animals are dumb is the reason why you eat them is to admit that stupid humans similarly do not have the right to existence.

>> "When you buy meat at the store, it's already dead and there's nothing you can do about it!"

1. Although it is true that meat at the store is already dead, the principle behind Veganism is that of economic boycott. By boycotting products and refusing to accept services for funds, you harm an industry. Rosa Parks knew this quite well and it worked in her situation. Since African Americans refused to take buses unless their rights were dignified, and since this method of Boycott worked, then it can also work for Veganism. If we refuse to buy the products of an industry bent on causing suffering to the lower animals, then we harm that industry. It is for this reason that I am a Vegan.

>> "Human teeth are carniverous and appearingly designed to consume flesh!"

1. The fact that human teeth may be designed to consume flesh is by no method a writ to actually consuming flesh. It is also true that a gun is designed to kill its target. Does this justify the killing of another human, simply because guns are made to kill? What of provolactics -- does the existence of the condom justify rape, simply because it is made for sex? In fact, to state that something was designed justifies it is so ridiculous, it is unworthy of being dignified with an answer.
2. If it is true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, then do not discriminate. It may be true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, but remember, this is also flesh. In that way, it is just as moral for a human to consume the flesh of a cow as it is for a human to consume the flesh of another human. After all, humans are all covered in a living robe of human flesh. (Quote of Ingersoll.) Since our teeth are designed to eat meat, then they are designed to eat any meat, which justifies cannibalism.

>> "It's the natural cycle that we eat meat! It's the Cycle of Life! It's Natural Selection!"

1. The Cycle of Life and Natural Selection are both scientific observations which have nothing at all to do with moral implications. There have been numerous Racist and Nazist groups which justify their actions by stating their purpose is to preserve their own race. As far as ethics and moral behavior goes, the Cycle of Life and Natural Selection hold no grounds.

>> "If we don't eat the animals, they will overrun the world!"

1. The animals humans consume are bred and reared for the sake of consumption. Eating the animals has little to do with preventing them from overrunning the world. The fact that humans breed them in unleveled amounts might contribute to that. To quote a poem by Henry Stephens Salt...

[i:29be9fc222]Mr Facing Both ways
by Henry S. Salt[/i:29be9fc222]

When the Huntsman claims praise for the killing of foxes,
Which else would bring ruin to farmer and land,
Yet kindly imports them, preserves them, assorts them,
There's a dicrepance I fain understand.

When the Butcher makes boast of the killing of cattle,
That would multiply fast and the world over-run,
Yet so carefully breeds them, rears, fattens and feeds them -
Here also, methinks, a fine cobweb is spun.

Hark you, then, whose profession or pastime is killing!
To dispel your benignant illusions I'm loth;
But be one or the other, my double faced brother,
Be slayer or saviour - you cannot be both.

>> "Animals are not conscious beings, though."

Evidence...

[quote:d6c6b85286]"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals." - Charles Darwin ["The Descent of Man," by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.][/quote:d6c6b85286]

[quote:d6c6b85286]With Descartes, we must inquire whether the souls of animals be relations of the human soul, less perfect members in the same series of development. We must take account of what we discover in the intelligent principle of the ant, as well as what we discern in the intelligent principle of man. Where would human physiology be, if it were not illuminated by the bright irradiations of comparative physiology? Brodie, after an exhaustive consideration of the facts, affirms that the mind of animals is essentially the same as that of man. Every one familiar with the dog will admit that that creature knows right from wrong, and is conscious when he has committed a fault. Many domestic animals have reasoning powers, and employ proper means for the attainment of ends. How numerous are the anecdotes related of the intentional actions of the elephant and the ape! Nor is this apparent intelligence due to imitation, to their association with man, for wild animals that have no such relation exhibit similar properties. In different species, the capacity and character greatly vary. Thus the dog is not only more intelligent, but has social and moral qualities that the cat does not possess; the former loves his master, the latter her home.

[...]

Du Bois-Reymond makes this striking remark: "With awe and wonder must the student of Nature regard that microscopic molecule of nervous substance which is the seat of the laborious, constructive, orderly, loyal, dauntless soul of the ant. It has developed itself to its present state through a countless series of generations." What an impressive inference we may draw from the statement of Huber, who has written so well on this subject: "If you will watch a single ant at work, you can tell what he will next do!" He is considering the matter, and reasoning as you are doing. Listen to one of the many anecdotes which Huber, at once truthful and artless, relates: "On the visit of an overseer ant to the works, when the laborers had begun the roof too soon, he examined it and had it taken down, the wall raised to the proper height, and a new ceiling constructed with the fragments of the old one."

[...]

Surely these insects are not automata, they show intention. They recognize their old companions, who have been shut up from them for many months, and exhibit sentiments of joy at their return. Their antennal language is capable of manifold expression; it suits the interior of the nest, where all is dark. While solitary insects do not live to raise their young, social insects have a longer term, they exhibit moral affections and educate their offspring. Patterns of patience and industry, some of these insignificant creatures will work sixteen or eighteen hours a day. Few men are capable of sustained mental application more than four or five hours. Similarity of effects indicates similarity of causes; similarity of actions demands similarity of organs. I would ask the reader of these paragraphs, who is familiar with the habits of animals, and especially with the social relations of that wonderful insect to which reference has been made, to turn to the nineteenth chapter of my work on the "Intellectual Development of Europe," in which he will find a description of the social system of the Incas of Peru. Perhaps, then, in view of the similarity of the social institutions and personal conduct of the insect, and the social institutions and personal conduct of the civilized Indian -- the one an insignificant speck, the other a man -- he will not be disposed to disagree with me in the opinion that "from bees, and wasps, and ants, and birds, from all that low animal life on which he looks with supercilious contempt, man is destined one day to learn what in truth he really is." The views of Descartes, who regarded all insects as automata, can scarcely be accepted without modification. Insects are automata only so far as the action of their ventral cord, and that portion of their cephalic ganglia which deals with contemporaneous impressions, is concerned. - John William Draper ["History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science," by John William Draper, chapter 5.][/quote:d6c6b85286]

>> "If we offer rights to animals, what about rights of insects, mosquitos, termites, wasps, among other detested animalia which cause suffering to humans?

It is true that there may appear to be "slippery slope" problems with Vegetarianism and Animal rights. However, before I answer this, I quote a significant passage from one of Henry Stephens Salt's works...

"As for the demand so frequently made on reformers, that they should first explain the details of their scheme-how this and that point will be arranged, and by what process all kinds of difficulties, real or imagined, will be circumvented-the only rational reply is that it is absurd to expect to see the end of a question, when we are now but at its beginning. The persons who offer this futile sort of criticism are usually those who under no circumstances would be open to conviction; they purposely ask for an explanation which, by the very nature of the case, is impossible because it necessarily belongs to a later period of time. It would be equally sensible to request a traveller to enumerate beforehand all the particular things he will see by the way, on the pain of being denounced as an unpractical visionary, although he may have a quite sufficient general knowledge of his course and destination." -- Henry Stephens Salt, [[i:d6c6b85286]Animals' Rights[/i:d6c6b85286], Chapter 1.]

It may be permissible to kill an animal if it is for the sake of self defense or along those lines. Remember, we ought to live rationally and humanely. If there is an animal which destroys our crop fields and prevents us from feeding ourselves, then killing that animal for the sake of our survival is not cruel, but is necessary. If there is an alternative, humane method of dealing with the dilemma of that animal -- such as placing it elsewhere or acquiring better protection for crops -- it is best that we do as much as we can to foster the alternative, humane method. Also, swatting a mosquito that is trying to bite us for the sake of self-defense is also permissible, but if something such as bug repellant can be used or some other method, then it is best that we choose the humane method.

www.punkerslut.com

For 108,
Punkerslut

>> "What about plants? They're alive, too!"

1. Plants may be alive, but being alive does not mean it deserves rights. Animals deserve rights because they are conscious. They are capable of feeling suffering like any human. It is true that plants are alive, too, but they consist of matter, just like rocks -- it does not mean that either are deserving of rights.
[color=red:fc322422b7]Everything is made of matter, so that's irrelevant. [/color:fc322422b7]

>> "Other animals eat each other. Therefore, we should be allowed to, as well!"

1. It does not matter that animals eat each other. This holds no reflection on morality. Primates are known to steal from each other, salamanders are known to cannibalize each other, and some Galapagos lizards are known to rape each other. However, it does not give us any right to steal, to cannibalize, or to rape other humans. Then, certainly, if animals consume each other, it does not give humans any right to consume animals.
2. It is true that lions and other predators must hunt to kill. However, humans are certainly not in that situation. We do not need to kill other conscious animals to keep ourselves alive. In fact, humans will live longer and survive longer if we STOP eating meat, as proven by numerous studies in science and nutrition. However, lions do not have an option to stop eating meat. If the same situation were for humans, then eating animals would be justified. If a human was trapped on an island with no consumable vegetation, then hunting and killing an animal to consume would be justifiable, as no other option would be present. However, in today's world, we do not need to kill any animals to survive.
[color=red:fc322422b7]First, those lizards who rape each other have to or their species would go extinct; showing the stupidity of them.[/color:fc322422b7]

3. Consider the fact that the animals that we do cultivate - cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc., etc. - do not kill each other. Therefore, if you truly follow your own reasoning that you eat animals because they consume each other, then you will abstain from consuming the Vegetarian animals and thus stop eating beef, poultry, and ham.
[color=red:fc322422b7]Just because plant eating animals dont kill each other, and most animals dont canabalize doesnt mean animals don't eat each other.[/color:fc322422b7]
>> "What about the needed protein and other nutrition?"

-- See stats.
[color=red:fc322422b7]Different experts believe different stuff, browse the net; some say people who eat meat are healthier, others say they are not..[/color:fc322422b7]
>> "Animals taste good, though, and therefore I have no reason to reform my ways."

1. Whether or not an animal tastes good is not justification for killing it. If all our actions were motivated by what pleases us, then rape and murder would be justifiable. In this sense, I say that the taste of flesh does not justify murder any more than an orgasm justifies rape.

[color=red:fc322422b7]We dont murder humans to eat meat.[/color:fc322422b7]

>> "Human teeth are carniverous and appearingly designed to consume flesh!"

1. The fact that human teeth may be designed to consume flesh is by no method a writ to actually consuming flesh. It is also true that a gun is designed to kill its target. Does this justify the killing of another human, simply because guns are made to kill? What of provolactics -- does the existence of the condom justify rape, simply because it is made for sex? In fact, to state that something was designed justifies it is so ridiculous, it is unworthy of being dignified with an answer.
2. If it is true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, then do not discriminate. It may be true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, but remember, this is also flesh. In that way, it is just as moral for a human to consume the flesh of a cow as it is for a human to consume the flesh of another human. After all, humans are all covered in a living robe of human flesh. (Quote of Ingersoll.) Since our teeth are designed to eat meat, then they are designed to eat any meat, which justifies cannibalism.


[color=red:fc322422b7]They dont appear that way, they are. Guns were made by us, we didnt design our own teeth.[/color:fc322422b7]
>> "It's the natural cycle that we eat meat! It's the Cycle of Life! It's Natural Selection!"

1. The Cycle of Life and Natural Selection are both scientific observations which have nothing at all to do with moral implications. There have been numerous Racist and Nazist groups which justify their actions by stating their purpose is to preserve their own race. As far as ethics and moral behavior goes, the Cycle of Life and Natural Selection hold no grounds.

>> "If we don't eat the animals, they will overrun the world!"

1. The animals humans consume are bred and reared for the sake of consumption. Eating the animals has little to do with preventing them from overrunning the world. The fact that humans breed them in unleveled amounts might contribute to that. To quote a poem by Henry Stephens Salt...

Mr Facing Both ways
by Henry S. Salt

When the Huntsman claims praise for the killing of foxes,
Which else would bring ruin to farmer and land,
Yet kindly imports them, preserves them, assorts them,
There's a dicrepance I fain understand.

When the Butcher makes boast of the killing of cattle,
That would multiply fast and the world over-run,
Yet so carefully breeds them, rears, fattens and feeds them -
Here also, methinks, a fine cobweb is spun.

Hark you, then, whose profession or pastime is killing!
To dispel your benignant illusions I'm loth;
But be one or the other, my double faced brother,
Be slayer or saviour - you cannot be both.

[color=red:fc322422b7]This is correct for most animals like cows, we breed them; however in many areas we have overpopulation problems such as with deer, there is to many within a city and there is many accidents,etc with them.[/color:fc322422b7]

I found this a very informative and interesting discussion. I tend to agree with punkerslut on all of it as I am a vegetarian and have thought about all of these matters for a long time. I feel all animals including humans are equal. I will not eat my equal with a face on it, too. If I love my pet as I love all animals, I cannot eat my pet, nor can I eat any other animal any longer. I, too, gave up leather and all forms of "meat" and do not need it to live. I feel this is the unselfish thing to do if a person really loves all animals. These realizations came to me over a period of years of pain and struggling with the issue.

We eat meat and have all kinds of names for it to disguise it from what it really is: "hamburger" sounds good but it is ground up animal guts and parts and full of excrements and fats and poisons that are given to the animals in the forms of drugs that harm us. The antibiotics in the animals make us immune to the antibiotics and when we get sick certain drugs won't work any longer. It has happened to me. I needed to take two different drugs to get rid of pneumonia. If it had been worse I could have died possibly.

Then there is the word steak which is a piece of a cow's or pig's or whatever's butt or leg or other part and is full of all of the germs that animal has.

Would it sound delicious to eat a "human butt" or "human thigh" or "human breast" literally?

Most people are in a state of not knowing consciously what they are really eating often. I thought about what exactly I was eating and could not eat it any longer. I mean regarding meat. I was eating a steak once and a huge artery popped out and blood splattered all over. I almost vomited. I was eating chicken and the same thing happened. If people constantly consciously think what exactly they are eating-a corpse full of god knows what drugs and disease (poor conditions bring these on) and bugs, etc. they might become as abhorred to eating "meats" as I became.

I don't even see the other animals as lower either in many ways. I've heard that humans are the most destructive and dangerous animals on the earth (Discovery channel) and yet we are higher? We have just found more complex ways to destroy when we know better... or do we know better than the other animals? Some of us do know. Yes, we have to protect ourselves from harm but I feel we need to protect the other animals from harm, too.

I also think the plea for vegetarianism needs to be brought to many people's consciousness and those who care about lives, all lives, may see the light to this real and important issue.

There are many alternatives to eating animals and many alternatives to using them for anything. There are also alternatives to killing them for population control. There are many programs underway with many animal rights societies that have these answers.

We don't have to kill people to control population-there is birth control. There are animal sanctuaries for animals that need protection, too. www.bestfriends.com


:ballons:

I regret that I haven't been a part of this discussion from the start, because it sure would have been fun.

Punkerslut, I find it a little hypocritical that someone who admittedly believes in Evolution and Natural Selection would state that all animals are equal. I believe Darwins entire THEORY is based on survival of the fittest. Wouldn't it stand to reason then, based on his THEORY that we humans have "evolved" further than any of our animal counterparts? After all, when was the last time a cow invented something? When was the last time a pig produced a vaccine to cure a disease? To say that we are on the same level of Dung Beetles is simply moronic, for I don't spend my days looking for the freshest pile of crap in which to roost.

You can post 1000 statements from vegetarian supporters, but none of them prove conclusively that humans and animals are equal. None of them can prove that rats have emotions. I could quote people justifying every atrocity in the history of mankind, but could not prove the validity of any of them.

Wow... what a load of meaningless quotes. I'd agree that we as humans have our place in the food chain and that it is therefore only natural that we would eat the ones below us. Why do you think cats eat mice?

Also, I believe that meat is neither necessary nor harmfuland its benefits can also be obtained in other ways. But I like meat and will never stop consuming it until the day when it is all infected with some deadly virus.

Heres a paper I've been working on for school, has to be 3 pages, it's about done.... Haven't even re-read it yet so please forgive any errors!

Vegetarianism

Vegetarians are people who avoid meat, poultry, milk, and other animal products. There is several different types of vegetarians. Semi-vegetarians don't eat meat; lacto-ovo-vegeterians will not eat meat, poultry, or fish; lacto-vegeterians only consume milk products; and people who follow veganism won't eat any type of animal product, nor use or support anything that comes from animals because they feel that the killing of animals is not necessary.
Vegetarianism can be traced back to religions such as hinduism and buddhism, the followers of those religions believe in reincarnation and therefore every animal and person should be treated equally. Organizations like The Vegeterian Society started to publicize vegeterianism in 1847, then in 1908 the International Vegeterian Society help promote the term by bringing together other vegeterian socieities from around the world. Even today organizations like Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) promote vegeterianism by advertising with signs, bill-boards, t.v. commercials, and through other techniques such as boycotting. Recently Peta's "Murder King" campaighn against Burger King forced Burger King to accept responsibility of the actions of their meat suppliers, and to please the vegeterians they will now be offering a veggie burger at all locations in the United States and they already offer the burger at there other locations nationwide. While many vegeterians such as Peta members don't eat meat because they feel it's cruel to animals, there is several reasons people become vegeterians including the ecological affects to the enviroment and the health benefits.
Vegeterians argue that the killing of animals is no longer necessary because humans can find plenty of non-flesh food to eat and claim that vegeterians are in general healthier. Scientific studies have shown that high (animal) fat diets can lead to obesity, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, diabetese, mellitus, and colorectal cancer. However, vegeterian diets can lack in iron, zinc, vitamin d, vitamin b6, vitamin b12, calcium, and selinium. The lack of vitamins from a vegetable diet can lead to less bone density, lacking bone density is a serious problem that can cause osteoporosis. A recent study showed that vegeterians had lower bone density than non-vegeterians, and over time vegeterians did not gain bone density as meat eaters did. Vegeterians, however, reported that osteoporosis is not a disease of calcium deficiency, they state that the excessive protien in a meat diet leeches calcium off the bone, because the average meet eater in America consumes five times the recommened amount of protein.
Furthermore, meat eating may cause other negative affects that wouldn't occur to the average person. For instance, seventy percent of the thirty-six million pounds of antibiotics are used on animals, usually given to healthy animals to make them grow faster while eating less food. This may explain the increasing amount of drug resistant bacteria, and in turn, hurts humans. Plants also require certain chemicals to grow economically, which can damage the enviroment. Some chemical used for plants include lime, fertilizer, and pesticides. Animal manure which is considered such a bad thing for animal rights advocates is used often as fertilizer, which is basically a way of recyling the waste.
Although sport fishing may not harm the fish population, the advanced techniques used by commerical fisherman may be damaging the fish population. Two thirds of the worlds major fishing areas have exhausted or seriously depleted the fish population. Nets and other similar devices can damage coral and other fish habitats. To help the population problems governments have placed restrictions on the number of fish that may be retrieved by fishermen, depending on things such as the type of fish and the season.
Most vegeterians believe that the way animals are raised is unnaceptable. Hens are stored in fourty eight to sixty eight inch cages stacked four high in a enviroment where the human workers must were gas masks due to rotting carcasses and manure gasses nearby. After a few months of being stored they are then transported somewhere to be killed, sometimes by gas, or sometimes ground up alive to feed the next flock. Cows that will be sold as veal are locked up and chained in a cage where they can't turn around their entire life. The cage is kept dark except during its feeding time and while it's being injected with drugs to keep it alive. Some ducks in capacity are forced fed with a pipe six or seven pounds of feed three times a day for twenty eight days. The ducks liver increases from six to twelve times its normal size. About ten percent of the ducks stomachs explode, killing them.
Many meat eaters say that animals are different from humans and cannot feel pain, if this is the case then how animals are treated and how they are killed doesn't matter. However there is some evidence that animals can feel pain. Some show intellegence, for instance Professor Stanley Curtis tought pigs to understand complex relationships between actions and objects, and found pigs to be focused, creative, and inovative. But some plants appear to show intellegence as well, a venus fly trap will show some, trapping a fly inside of it. Instinct can make a thing appear intellegent, and since pain is a state of conciousness, the question is are animals concious? Are they aware of their enviroment. Plants do not appear conscious though, the instinct like behavior of the fly trap always occurs when triggered. Flys do not appear conscious either though, a fly will continue to fly towards light, indicating it is only acting on instinct and has no true intellegence, consciousness, or awareness. Although we can not be positive that others, even other humans, are feeling pain we can see the external indications. Most animals, itleast most mammals, demonstrate the signs of pain which include whithing, facial contortions, moaning, yelling, calling; and they ty to avoid the source of pain.
Over one billion people in the world do not get enough to eat. Since plants yield an estimated ten to twenty percent more protein than meat per acre, and seventy percent of the United States grain and fourty percent of the world's goes to feed livestock; many homeless and poor could be fed if less meat was consumed by the average person. However, this point may be invalid because farmers would not produce more food than what they were getting paid for, and would either sell some of their land or use it for another venture anyways. In areas that land is scarce vegeterianism can help, since the production of one pound of animal protein from a calf requires feeding it twenty one pounds of protein. U.S. livestock produces ten thousand pounds of solid manure every year, for every citizen. Manure causes problems, however it can be used for other userful things, including the feed to other animals such as birds.
There is many advantages and disadvantages for vegeterians. Vegeterians claim that the killing of animals is cruel, that they a non-meat diet is healthier, and that eating plants is more ecological. Others say that animals are not concious and cannot feel pain, that eating meet is the only way to get the required protein needed, and that growing more plants rather than raising livestock would really not solve any problems.

Sources:

All Forums Network Discussion. A plea for vegeterianism. http://AllForums.net

Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2001. Vegeterianism. http://encarta.msn.com

Vegeterian Journal (Sept. 1997) How many vegetarians are there? Volume XVI #5.

Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D. (1998) Scientific Update. Vegeterian Journal.

Peta. http://peta.org.

Animal liberation, Peter Singer, 2nd edition, New York: Avon Book 2 (1990). http://animalconcerns.org

[quote:88c77df003="punkerslut"]
JWB...



It is true that animals eat each other -- however, primates are known to steal from each other, galapagos lizards are known to rape each other, and salamanders are known to cannibalize each other (25% of their diet). Does that mean that imitation is acceptable? Absolutely not. In fact, according to the reasoning that "others do it, therefore we can, too," -- the Neo-Nazi movement is ENTIRELY justified, and the slaughtering of Jews should commence without caprice![/quote:88c77df003]We do that all the time. We steal, we rape, and we 'eat' eachother. Heh. Your point?

Man! All of this reading has made me hungry. I sure could go for a double cheeseburger with a side of chicken wings. :D


-VAN (100% Vaginarian)

(sorry...I'm always a smart ---)