I'm responding to a previous thread that was deleted on veganism. Here is my answer to all your questions that I was inable to respond to.

"What rights should animals have?"
Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration and respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her.

However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours and some rights would be irrelevant to animals’ lives. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and therefore doesn’t have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.

"Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?"
Because an animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability's inability to do so. Animals are not usually capable of choosing to change their behavior, but human beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.

"Most animals used for food, fur, or experiments are bred for that purpose."
Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s biological capacity to feel pain and fear.

"God put animals here for us to use; the Bible gives us dominion over animals."
Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has "dominion" over her subjects, but that doesn't mean she can eat them, wear them, or experiment on them. If we have dominion over animals, surely it is to protect them, not to use them for our own ends. There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our modern-day policies and programs that desecrate the environment, destroy entire species of wildlife, and inflict torment and death on billions of animals every year. The Bible imparts a reverence for life; a loving God could not help but be appalled at the way animals are being treated.

"Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories don’t suffer that much because they’ve never known anything else."
To be prevented from performing the most basic instinctual behaviors causes tremendous suffering. Even animals caged since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves, stretch their limbs or wings, and exercise. Herd animals and flock animals become distressed when they are made to live in isolation or when they are put in groups too large for them to be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined animals suffer from intense boredom—some so severely that it can lead to self-mutilation or other self-destructive behavior.

"Animals are not as intelligent or advanced as humans."
If possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human for his or her purposes, why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans?

There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as in the case of a chimpanzee compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?

"Without hunting, deer and other animals would overpopulate and die of starvation."
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature's way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal whose head they think would look good mounted above the fireplace—often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. And hunting creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate.

If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals’ fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. Ironically, many deer herds and duck populations are purposely manipulated to produce more and more animals for hunters to kill.

Well if it ain't Confused Buckshot Travis! How ya been? Man I thought we had lost you with the board switch. Man it's so good to se ya!

You been bullriding yet? I bet you've been sneaking over to the local honkeytonk, downing a few cold ones and ripping plumb rotten on that there mechanical bull. I can't wait to see ya win that belt buckle! YEEEEHAAAAH!!! Confused Buckshot Travis rides again!!!

Let's get together and go huntin' like we talked about! I'll gas up Thunderfoot and mount that treestand tripod on the back you're so fond of... man It'll be a blast!!! You can use my paintball gun, you being a root eater and all, shoot Bambi in the arse and let out a holler!!! You da man! Confused Buckshot Travis... chief -shootum- arse!!!!!!!

Do you ever atempt to stay on topic. From the looks of your previous post you just like to talk about bull riding. :D

Hey man... what can I say?!!! :D :) =p

It is not the killing or the eating of animals which I disagree with, but it is the method by which they are killed and the conditions they are put through prior to their death that I would consider protesting over.

The chickens McDonald's grows are given hormones which cause them to grow much larger than they should. This causes horrible foot pains and often broken legs. The day they are all put into the killing wherehouse, there are so many chickens in the building that there is enough room per chicken to fit the size of a sheet of paper. This often causes heart attacks (to the lucky ones if you ask me.) The pigs are kept in cement stalls which are so small that the pigs cannot turn around or lie down comfortably.

I should protest this, but i dont.

Also, the argument that the amount of grain used to feed cows could feed 90% more people, which, statistically speaking, could end world hunger, is unfair to humans. Why cant we say the same for other animals? Why should humans change the path which their biological features instruct them to lead? Why cant the zebra eating lions stop eating zebras?

I think it's silly to consider eating animals being immoral. Lions eat zebras, are lions immoral? The human body is built as an omnivore, so it expects both meat and non-meat.

Humans are part of the natural food chain, they are built into it, they are supposed to be a part of it.

To purposely exit out of it would be one or the other: considering themselves superior in morality, or stepping into the rank of inferiority, as they are not good enough to eat that which every other omnivorouse or carnivorouse animal eats. It is only fair to say that we as humans are, if nothing else, equal to animals.

Finally- how dare anyone bring their bible into such an argument. Your enterpretation of a book which is considered the crux of your religion should by no means whatsoever be the deciding factor or even a factor of the argument in whether or not you have the right to take someone elses life. *cough*911*cough*

Let me tell you something. You get hungry enough, you'll eat your own arm!!! This "sprout" lifestyle is for some but not me. I have to agree with the conditions that some animals are subjected to are bad. Remember though, these animals are bred for human consumption. As long as there's a McDonald's, Burger King, or Chick-filet, you are speaking on deaf ears. I personally will continue my protien-vegan diet with pleasure!

:mad: life lives off of life. that is a fact. therefore, things must die for other things to survive. why are the plants and animals getting the brunt of the dying and humans the living?? humans, animals and the plants deserve equal rights. just because humans are "intelegent", does not make us holy and everything else becomes a snack-bar.
the world is allready over populated, maybe we could sacrafice the criminals or something.....=p

Oh boy! Looks like you and the Confused One are going to go a few rounds over that one!:rolleyes:

I don't believe animals should be mistreated, but I don't think you can say they have "rights."



[quote:38e6b8aee0]humans, animals and the plants deserve equal rights[/quote:38e6b8aee0]


AHHHAHAHAHAHA! Now the bleeding hearts want equal rights for plants! haha! That's priceless!

Animals have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We therefore are obliged to take that interest into consideration and respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her.

However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans, because their interests are not always the same as ours and some rights would be irrelevant to animals’ lives. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and therefore doesn’t have the right to vote, since that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.

Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her). It means recognizing that animals are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation

There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain, devoid as they are of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains. It is theorized that the main reason animals have the ability to experience pain is as a form of self-protection. If you touch something that hurts and could possibly injure you, you will learn from the pain it produces to leave it alone in the future. Since plants cannot locomote and do not have the need to learn to avoid certain things, this sensation would be superfluous.

Plants are completely different physiologically from mammals. Unlike animals' body parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without resulting in the death of the plant or tree.

If one is concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on the environment, a vegetarian diet is still preferable to a meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes raised today are used as feed for cattle. By eating vegetables directly, rather than eating animals such as cows who must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh, one is saving many more plants' lives (and destroying less land

And that's why Buckshot ONLY rides mechanical bulls! You tell 'em Buckshot. Yer tha best dern mechanical bullrider this side of tha Mississippi. (I myself am a little inclined ta "real" bullridin',steak too!)


YEEEHAAAHHH!!! Confused Buckshot Travis!!! Ride that iron bull!!!!!!:D

Someone give me a 46 oz Steak! I am hungry!

I do not go for mistreating of an animals, but some good hamburger is great!

ComputerGuy that comment sounds like hpocrisy to me! The following is the life of a factory cow we must remember Chickens, fish, and other factory animals sustain they same enviroment.

The veal calf industry is one of the most reprehensible of all the kinds of intensive animal agriculture. Veal calves are a by-product of the dairy industry; they are "manufactured" by "milk machines"--dairy cows. Female calves are raised to be dairy cows: They are confined and fed synthetic hormones to increase growth and production and antibiotics to keep them alive in their unhealthy, unnatural environments. They are artificially inseminated and, after giving birth, are milked for several years until their production levels drop, then they are slaughtered.

Male calves are taken from their mothers shortly after birth. Some are slaughtered soon after birth for "bob veal." Others are raised in "open pens," a kind of minimum security prison, and even then they are sometimes chained. Most are destined for the veal crate.

The veal crate is a wooden restraining device that is the veal calf's permanent home. It is so small (22" x 54") that the calves cannot turn around or even lie down and stretch and is the ultimate in high-profit, confinement animal agriculture.(1) Designed to prevent movement (exercise), the crate does its job of atrophying the calves' muscles, thus producing tender "gourmet" veal.

The calves are generally fed a milk substitute intentionally lacking in iron and other essential nutrients. This diet keeps the animals anemic and creates the pale pink or white color desired in the finished product. Craving iron, the calves lick urine-saturated slats and any metallic parts of their stalls. Farmers also withhold water from the animals, who, always thirsty, are driven to drink a large quantity of the high-fat liquid feed.

Because of such extremely unhealthy living conditions and restricted diets, calves are susceptible to a long list of diseases, including chronic pneumonia and "scours," or constant diarrhea. Consequently, they must be given massive doses of antibiotics and other drugs just to keep them alive. (The antibiotics are passed on to consumers in the meat.) The calves often suffer from wounds caused by the constant rubbing against the crates.

About 14 weeks after their birth, the calves are slaughtered. The quality of this "food," laden with chemicals, lacking in fiber and other nutrients, diseased and processed, is another matter. The real issue is the calves' experience. During their brief lives, they never see the sun or touch the Earth. They never see or taste the grass. Their anemic bodies crave proper sustenance. Their muscles ache for freedom and exercise. They long for maternal care. They are kept in darkness except to be fed two to three times a day for 20 minutes. The calves have committed no crime, yet have been sentenced to a fate comparable to any Nazi concentration camp.

Someone pass the steaksauce, mmmmmm that veal is good! Would you like some Grey Poupon? Lime mint is just great with bob veal. I highly reccomend it. I prefer my steaks medium rare. I'm sure glad there's more for me to eat since you guys decline!

That is a pretty weak arguement to convince me to start eatting meat!

[quote:689c6a3baf]just because humans are "intelegent", does not make us holy and everything else becomes a snack-bar.[/quote:689c6a3baf] i dunno if you all actually read it.

I simply relish the thoughts of a good steak. I think that Ruth's Chris is a great place to eat. Although their veal is simply par, the mutton is absolutely wonderful! I highly reccomend them both really. Texas steakhouse, Outback, you name it. If the steak is medium well, I'll try it. Anybody else like these restaurants? How do you like your steak cooked?

hahaha... I can no longer take this thread seriously. It is hilarious to hear you liberals talk about how plants and animals should have equal rights and not be eaten and blah blah blah...

IT IS NATURE'S WAY!

I think one person said plants should have equal consideration. You will find anyway possibly to attack Liberals. Go read some Bill O' Riley.

Okay, cancel the plants comment. Eating meat is still nature's way! It is not wrong.

Now I'm going to get some sleep, which is also nature's way.

Eating steak is definitely my way. Cook-out anyone?

<Begin Smart Allic Talk>

Hey Dave, when we go to that Andy's Steaks and Burgers place, lets ask them if they asked the lettuce if it was ok for us to eat it, I mean come don't let(tuce) out on me here! :)


<End Smart Allic Talk>

When consuming animal products such as milk or meat you begin to higher the risk of several diseases and cancers.

Yeah, if the meat is raw. And I also heard that that evil milk will cause osteoperosis. :rolleyes:

Also, if animals have the right to mercilessly tear each other apart and inflict incredible pain on other animals for the sake of eating meat, then I demand equal rights! Humans should have the right to eat animals too! Let's start a radical social movement! EQUAL MEAT-CONSUMPTION RIGHTS FOR HUMANS!

Meat highers the risk of cancer and diseases even when cooked well-done.

I would definatly like to see proof of this in scientific journals.

But assuming it's true... EATING MEAT IS STILL NATURE'S WAY!

I guess them dang tigers have cancerous tumor's all over 'em!

Because an animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability's inability to do so. Animals are not usually capable of choosing to change their behavior, but human beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.

I'm sorry Dave but eatting meat is not as natural as you think!

Studies of human evolution have shown that our ancestors were vegetarian by nature. The structure of the human body is not suited for eating meat. This was demonstrated in an essay on comparative anatomy by Dr. G. S. Huntingen of Columbia University. He pointed out that carnivores have short small and large intestines. Their large intestine is characteristically very straight and smooth. In contrast, vegetarian animals have both a long small intestine and a long large intestine. Because of the low fiber content and high protein density of meat, the intestines do not require a long time to absorb nutrients; thus, the intestines of carnivores are shorter in length than those of vegetarian animals.
Humans, like other naturally vegetarian animals, have both a long small and large intestine. Together, our intestines are approximately twenty-eight feet (eight and a half meters) in length. The small intestine is folded back on itself many times, and its walls are convoluted, not smooth. Because they are longer than those found in carnivores, the meat we eat stays in our intestines for a longer period of time. Consequently, the meat can putrefy and create toxins. These toxins have been implicated as a cause of colon cancer, and they also increase the burden on the liver, which has the function of getting rid of toxins. This can cause cirrhosis and even cancer of the liver.

Meat contains a lot of urokinase protein and urea, which add to the burden on the kidneys, and can destroy kidney function. There are fourteen grams of urokinase protein in every pound of steak. If living cells are put into liquid urokinase protein, their metabolic function will degenerate. Furthermore, meat lacks cellulose or fiber, and lack of fiber can easily create constipation. It is known that constipation can cause rectal cancer or piles.

The cholesterol and saturated fats in flesh also create cardiovascular disorders. Cardiovascular disorders are the number one leading cause of death in the United States, and now in Formosa.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death. Experiments indicate that the burning and roasting of flesh creates a chemical element (Methylcholanthrene) which is a powerful carcinogen. Mice given this chemical develop cancers, such as bone tumors, cancer of the blood, cancer of the stomach, etc.

Research has shown that infant mice fed by a female mouse having breast cancer will also develop cancer. When human cancer cells were injected into animals, the animals also developed cancer. If the meat which we eat daily comes from animals that originally have such disorders, and we take them into our body, there is a good chance we will also get the diseases.

Most people assume that meat is clean and safe, that there are inspections done at all butcheries. There are far too many cattle, pigs, poultry, etc. killed for sale every day for each one to actually be examined. It's very difficult to check whether a piece of meat has cancer in it, let alone check every single animal. Currently, the meat industry just cuts off the head when it has a problem, or cuts off the leg which is diseased. Only the bad parts are removed and the rest is sold.

The famous vegetarian, Dr. J. H. Kellogg said, "When we eat vegetarian food, we don't have to worry about what kind of disease the food died of. This makes a joyful meal!"

There is yet another concern. Antibiotics as well as other drugs including steroids and growth hormones are either added to animal feed or injected directly into the animals. It has been reported that people eating these animals will absorb these drugs into their bodies. There is a possibility that antibiotics in meat are diminishing the effectiveness of antibiotics for human use.

There are some people who consider the vegetarian diet not sufficiently nourishing. An American surgical expert, Dr. Miller, practiced medicine for forty years in Formosa. He established a hospital there, where all the meals were vegetarian, for staff members as well as the patients. He said, "The mouse is one kind of animal which can support its life with both a vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet. If two mice are segregated, with one eating flesh and the other vegetarian food, we find that their growth and development are the same, but that the vegetarian mouse lives longer and has greater resistance to disease. Furthermore, when the two mice got sick, the vegetarian mouse recovered quicker." He then added, "The medicine given to us by modern science has improved greatly, but it can only treat illnesses. Food, however, can sustain our health." He pointed out that, "Food from plants is a more direct source of nutrition than meat. People eat animals, but the source of nutrition for the animals we eat is plants. The lives of most animals are short, and animals have nearly all the diseases that mankind has. It is very likely that the diseases of mankind come from eating the flesh of diseased animals. So, why don't people get their nutrition directly from plants?" Dr. Miller suggested that we only need cereals, beans and vegetables to get all the nourishment we need to maintain good health.

Many people have the idea that animal protein is 'superior' to plant protein because the former is considered a complete protein, and the latter is incomplete. The truth is that some plant proteins are complete, and that food combining can create complete proteins out of several incomplete protein foods.

In March 1988 the American Dietetic Association announced that: "It is the position of the ADA that vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate when appropriately planned."

It is often falsely believed that meat eaters are stronger than vegetarians, but an experiment conducted by Professor Irving Fisher of Yale University on 32 vegetarians and 15 meat-eaters showed that vegetarians had more endurance than meat eaters. He had people hold out their arms for as long as possible. The outcome from the test was very clear. Among the 15 meat-eaters, only two persons could hold out their arms for fifteen to thirty minutes; however, among the 32 vegetarians, 22 persons held out their arms for fifteen to thirty minutes, 15 persons for over thirty minutes, 9 persons for over one hour, 4 persons for over two hours, and one vegetarian held his arms out for over three hours.

Many long distance track athletes keep a vegetarian diet for the time preceding competitions. Dr. Barbara More, an expert in vegetarian therapy, completed a one hundred and ten mile race in twenty-seven hours and thirty minutes. A woman of fifty-six years of age, she broke all the records held by young men. "I want to be an example to show that people who take a whole vegetarian diet will enjoy a strong body, a clear mind, and a purified life."

Does the vegetarian get enough protein in his diet? The World Health Organization recommends that 4.5% of daily calories be derived from protein. Wheat has 17% of it's calories as protein, broccoli has 45% and rice has 8%. It is very easy to have a protein rich diet without eating meat. With the additional benefit of avoiding the many diseases caused by high fat diets such as heart disease and many cancers, vegetarianism is clearly the superior choice.

The relationship between over consumption of meat, and other animal source foods containing high levels of saturated fats, and heart disease, breast cancer, colon cancer and strokes has been proven. Other diseases which are often prevented and sometimes cured by a low fat vegetarian diet include: kidney stones, prostate cancer, diabetes, peptic ulcers, gallstones, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis, gum disease, acne, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, hypoglycemia, constipation, diverticulosis, hypertension, osteoporosis, ovarian cancer, hemorrhoids, obesity, and asthma.

There is no greater personal health risk than eating meat, aside from smoking.

Dairy products are considered a dietary staple by many, yet they are neither a necessary nor a desirable part of a healthy human diet. For those who wish to avoid meat for ethical and/or health reasons, dairy products are a poor substitute.

Whole cow's milk is suited to the nutritional needs of calves who, unlike human babies, double their weight in 47 days (as opposed to 180 for humans), grow four healthy stomachs, and weigh 300 pounds within a year. Cow's milk contains about three times as much protein as human milk and almost 50 percent more fat. Despite the clever advertising of the dairy industry, it is not "natural" for humans to drink cow's milk. No other species drinks milk beyond infancy, and no other species drinks the milk of another species (except domestic cats and dogs, who are taught the habit). After four years of age, most people develop lactose intolerance, the inability to digest the carbohydrate lactose (found in milk), because they no longer synthesize the digestive enzyme lactase. Consuming dairy products after early childhood can cause diarrhea, gas, and cramps.

In addition to being an unnatural food for humans, cow's milk, like other dairy products, is unhealthful. John A. McDougall, M.D., calls dairy foods "liquid meat" because their nutritional contents are so similar. Rich in fat and cholesterol, dairy products, including cheese, milk, butter, cream, yogurt, and whey (found in many margarines and commercial baked goods), contribute to the development of heart disease, certain cancers, and stroke-our nation's three deadliest killers-and even osteoporosis, as studies have repeatedly shown.

Osteoporosis is bone loss due to calcium resorption, which, contrary to the protestations of the dairy industry, is not halted or prevented by an increase in the intake of calcium so much as by a drop in protein consumption. High-protein foods, such as meat, eggs, and dairy products, leach calcium from the body as excess protein is processed by the liver and passed through the kidneys, making the kidneys work harder and causing the loss of minerals such as calcium. Societies with little or no consumption of dairy foods and animal proteins show low incidences of osteoporosis. Furthermore, Dr. McDougall notes, "Calcium deficiency caused by an insufficient amount of calcium in the diet is not known to occur in humans."

Other illnesses are more prevalent among those who consume significant amounts of dairy products than among vegans. Ninety percent of asthma patients who were put on a completely vegetarian diet (without meat, eggs, or dairy products) experienced great improvements in the frequency and severity of their attacks. Dairy products are also the leading cause of food allergies and have been implicated in congestive heart failure, neonatal tetany, tonsil enlargement, ulcerative colitis, Hodgkin's disease, and respiratory, skin, gastrointestinal, and behavioral problems.

1. McDougall, John A., M.D., and Mary A. McDougall, The McDougall Plan, New Century Publishers, Inc., pp. 49-51.
2. McDougall, op.cit., p. 100.
3. McDougall, op.cit., p. 52.
4. Robbins, John, Diet for a New America, Stillpoint Publishing, 1987, p. 300.
5. McDougall, op.cit., pp. 49-50.

Dr. Atkins says it's ok. I'm still waiting for anyone who wants a cookout! By the way, I'm supplying the steaks. Stay out of my fridge! That's what coolers are for!:cool:

CY, you are so off-base on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that humans are naturally vegetarians who have learned to eat meat. That is ridiculous. Neanderthals were eating meat, dude. It is just as natural as eating a carrot.

I'm sorry, but if it is ok for a freakin' animal to eat meat, then blast it, I am going to eat it too!

Like it or not, it is nature's way. Meat is part of a NORMAL, well balanced diet. Why else would nutritionists suggest that vegetarians especially should take vitamens? They sure as heck didn't have vitamens 1,000 years ago, so don't tell me that's natural.

And that other crap about people eating meat and getting cancer is absolutely ridiculous. If it does cause cancer, it must in a VERY small amount of people, because this nation is very health conscious now-a-days, and I think if MEAT was second only to smoking in causing cancer, that news would be ALL OVER THE PLACE.

You are a fool.

im not saying all plants and animals should be saved, im saying their deaths should not solely support humanity. humans are not that amazing. we are "intelegent", but i know plenty of flaws we have that plants or animals do not have. we are doing more damage than good to the Earth and the flora and fauna. the bible claims humans are holy (i dont believe the bible, im just making a point), but if we were truly holy, then we would help our fellow cretures. i suppose the Earth will last long enough for me to die naturally, but probably not much longer......:(


CY, do you need so many words per post??

I hope you read the follow in which will prove you wrong Dave.

[quote:dbe9295b39]Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that humans are naturally vegetarians who have learned to eat meat. That is ridiculous. Neanderthals were eating meat, dude. It is just as natural as eating a carrot.[/quote:dbe9295b39]

Studies of human evolution have shown that our ancestors were vegetarian by nature. The structure of the human body is not suited for eating meat. This was demonstrated in an essay on comparative anatomy by Dr. G. S. Huntingen of Columbia University.

Please show me scientific studies that prove that it's natural for humans to consume meat.

[quote:dbe9295b39]I'm sorry, but if it is ok for a freakin' animal to eat meat, then blast it, I am going to eat it too![/quote:dbe9295b39]

Because an animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or a person with a developmental disability's inability to do so. Animals are not usually capable of choosing to change their behavior, but human beings have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t.

This is irrelevant. Some animals steal food from each other and rape each other. Ought we copy these actions as well?

[quote:dbe9295b39]Like it or not, it is nature's way. Meat is part of a NORMAL, well balanced diet. Why else would nutritionists suggest that vegetarians especially should take vitamins? They sure as heck didn't have vitamins 1,000 years ago, so don't tell me that's natural.[/quote:dbe9295b39]

I've been a Vegan for 5 years and never has a doctor advised me to start taking vitamins.

Many people have the idea that animal protein is 'superior' to plant protein because the former is considered a complete protein, and the latter is incomplete. The truth is that some plant proteins are complete, and that food combining can create complete proteins out of several incomplete protein foods.

In March 1988 the American Dietetic Association announced that: "It is the position of the ADA that vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate when appropriately planned."

It is often falsely believed that meat eaters are stronger than vegetarians, but an experiment conducted by Professor Irving Fisher of Yale University on 32 vegetarians and 15 meat-eaters showed that vegetarians had more endurance than meat eaters.

Does the vegetarian get enough protein in his diet? The World Health Organization recommends that 4.5% of daily calories be derived from protein. Wheat has 17% of it's calories as protein, broccoli has 45% and rice has 8%. It is very easy to have a protein rich diet without eating meat. With the additional benefit of avoiding the many diseases caused by high fat diets such as heart disease and many cancers, vegetarianism is clearly the superior choice.

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. [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.]
Diets designed for health and longevity like the Pritikin plan and the McDougall plan are either largely or entirely vegetarian. [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).]

[quote:dbe9295b39]And that other crap about people eating meat and getting cancer is absolutely ridiculous. If it does cause cancer, it must in a VERY small amount of people, because this nation is very health conscious now-a-days, and I think if MEAT was second only to smoking in causing cancer, that news would be ALL OVER THE PLACE[/quote:dbe9295b39]

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! [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.]

The protein intake of the average American exceeds 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 carbohydrate intake. [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.]

If a person eats just wheat, rice, and/or potatoes, the only way they will not get enough protein is if they are starving. [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).]

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. [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.]

When meat is eaten, it sits heavily in our stomachs, blocking our digestive processes until, days later, we struggle to excrete it. [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.]

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. [Resource: "The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988).]

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. [Resource: The New York Times, October 25, 1974.]

Appleby et al. 1999, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70, 525S:
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.

Segasothy & Phillips 1999, Q J Med, 92, 531:
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.

Kushi et al. 1995, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 1416S:
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.
Kestin et al. 1989, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 280:
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.

Meyer et al. 1997, American Journal of Epidemiology, 145, 117:
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.
Feskanich et al. 1996, American Journal of Epidemiology, 143, 472:

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.
Marsh et al. 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 837:

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.
Ward & Lopez-Carrillo 1999, American Journal of Epidemiology, 149, 925:

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.
Singh & Fraser 1998, American Journal of Epidemiology, 148, 761:

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.
Layton et al. 1995, Carcinogenesis, 16, 39:
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.
Giovannucci et al. 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 1571:

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.
Mann et al. 1997, Heart, 78, 450:
T
he 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.
Burr & Butland 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 830:

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.
Snowdon et al. 1984, Preventive Medicine, 13(5), 490:
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.
Turpeinen 1979, Circulation, 59,1:

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.
Melby et al. 1994, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 103:
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.

The following are quotes from the article "Worrying About Milk" by Will Hively in Discover magazine (August 2000, Volume 21, Number 8).

"The fact that fats in dairy products can contribute to hardening of the arteries and heart disease has long been common knowledge." [Page 46.]

"The bottom line for Campbell [main scientist of article] is simple: 'It's unnatural to drink milk.' Most adults in Asia and Africa, along with many in southern Europe and Latin America, have trouble digesting lactose, the main sugar in the milk of both humans and cows." [Page 46.]

"Campbell argues that the ultimate problem with cow's milk is that nature concocts different formulas of mother's milk for different species. What's good for baby calves isn't necessarily good for human babies or adults. 'Isn't it strange that we're the only species that suckles from another species?' he says. Campebell theorizes that cow's milk unnaturally stimulates enzymes and growth hormones in the human body that increase the risk of various diseases." [Page 46.]

"But his [Campbell's] outlook [that milk was good] changed after he headed overseas in 1965 to serve for 10 years as coordinator of a U.S. AID project in the Philippines, where poverty-stricken children were dying mysteriously from liver cancer believed to be linked to malnutrition. For protein, children depended largely on peanuts, which in the tropics often contain relatively high amounts of aflatoxin, a carcinogen produced by mold growth. To his surprise, Campbell discovered during his tenure in the Philippines that the incidence of liver cancer was especially high among some of the best nourished kids, whose diets were supplemented with powdered milk provided through a U.S.-subsidized program. He was completely baffled until he read about a 1968 research study conducted in India by Madhavan and Gopalan and published in the Archives of Pathology. The study linked milk protein to liver cancer in lab rats." [Page 46, 48.]

"...rats given a brief initial exposure to aflatoxin tended to develop liver cancer when fed casein, the main protein in milk." [Page 48.]

"E. J. Hawrylewicz, a nutritional biochemist and research director at Mercy Hospital and Medical Center in Chicago, performed a somewhat similar series of experiments that reaveled lab rats are more likely to develop breast cancer tumors when fed casein than when fed soy protein." [Page 48.]

"Hawrylewicz agrees with Campbell that a good anticancer strategy is to choose a diet rich in plant rather than animal proteins." [Page 48.]

"Epidemiological research adds a new line of evidence, and in this case it suggest a correlation between milk consumption and at least two kinds of cancer prevalent in Europe and North America: breast and prostate." [Page 48.]

"In Asia, where many people drink no milk whatsoever, among women aged 35 to 64, Campbell found that breast cancer deaths averaged 8.7 per 100,000 as opposed to 44 per 100,000 in the United States.... A comparative study published in 1989 showed that even in Europe, two areas with higher milk consumption--Scandinavia and the Netherlands--also had higher breast cancer rates." [Page 48.]

"In the Physicians' Health Study, researcher tracked 20,885 male doctors over 10 years. Those who consumed at least 2&1/2 servings of dairy food per day were 30 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer than doctors who consumed less than half a serving. A 1999 study of nearly 50,000 subjects, called the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, had found that men who consumed a lot of dairy products had a 70 percent higher risk of prostate cancer. If they also took calcium supplements, their risk jumped dramatically: Those who consumed a total of more than 2,000 milligrams of calcium per day raised their risk of metastic prostate cancer more than fourfold." [Page 49.]

"In general, the Chinese eat a nearly vegetarian diet. Another pronounced difference between China and the West caught Campbell by surprise: the contrasting levels of osteoporosis. Most Chinese were getting their calcium from vegetables and fruits alone. Although they got less than half the calcium recommended by the USDA, their bones seemed healthy. Among women over 50, the hip facture rate appeared to be one fifth as high as in Western nations." [Page 49, 51.]

"Although milk's calcium and other nutrients do promote bone growth, says Campbell, other substances in dairy foods and other animal products--certain proteins and especially sodium--actually leach some calcium from the bone. The Chinese were evidently getting sufficient calcium from dark green vegetables, legumes, and some fruits. And because those foods don't also promote calcium loss, the Chinese might not need to take in as much calcium overall." [Page 51.]

"By the 1990s, nutrition researcehrs had fathered data from different parts of the world and found another suprising correlation: The more calcium people consumed, the more susceptible they seemed to be to hip fractures. People in those countries that consume the highest levels of dairy foods (North America and nothern European nations) take in two or three times more calcium yet break two or three times more bones than people with the lowest calcium intake (Asians and Africans)." [Page 51.]

"In 1997, results of a 12-year study of 78,000 nurses questioned the link between high calcium intake and strong bones. It found that the subjects who drank the most milk--two or more glasses per day--broke more bones than the others. They had a significantly higher risk of hip fracture." [Page 51.]

I say we start a thumbs up and thumbs down rating for CY, that way we know if we should read his long posts or just the first word and understand everything!

ThunderChicken, I will defintly take a steak!

I'm sorry if I write long post I thought by now all of us being teens or adults could comprehend more than the ussual 5 line post. Sometimes to prove a point it takes longer than 5 lines. If you don't feel like reading than I suggest you find a section in which does not take so much time.

CY, i understand your need to write long posts. they are indepth and quality, but maybe you could have a header every few paragraphs. that way, we know your arguement with a simple read and if there is a particular point we want to know more about, then we can read the specific paragraphs. And of course, if someone wishes to read the whole post, that is welcomed.

[quote:81c45b38f9="DaveTooner"]
I don't believe animals should be mistreated, but I don't think you can say they have "rights."





AHHHAHAHAHAHA! Now the bleeding hearts want equal rights for plants! haha! That's priceless! [/quote:81c45b38f9]

Dave: I think I'll pass this board by. One blatherer is enough to contend with. This board has two. They are in lockstep and both are still living in another world-AND IT ISN'T THE REAL ONE.

As I said before, this thread is absoultely ridiculous.

I consider myself to have an above average knowledge of science and all of this blabber is ridiculous.

Your still yet to show us proof that consuming animals is natural. And did I prove Dave wrong with my previous posts because you're yet to give a point vaild enough to actully convince me to eat animals yet I've given you facts with sited sources. You don't know much about science because the previous facts of mine have all been scientific studies! If your so educated in science than I ask you to prove my previous post to me incorrect.

CY, please inform me of why my teeth have grooves in them?

My understanding from the Head of the UNC dentist office told me it was for tearing meat, and over the last thousands of years or so, they have actually came down because we do not tear meat with our teeth.

I'm sorry, but I have to see this stuff for my own eyes. I just don't believe that garbage. Now, I'm not trying to convince you to eat meat. That's your choice and I couldn't care less. But when you start saying it's an ETHICAL issue when it's really a MORAL issue, I have a problem with it.

However, I am a conservative. Therefore, I cannot think for myself, so, like the animals, I should be excused for eating meat since I don't know any better. ;)

Well Dave, mine came from him directly, as I used to go there to have my braces and blah blah so fourth

But think about it, why would we need to tear leafey plants? I mean come on! it tears right there, an d also my understanding from the life and science museum clearly states that herbovore Dinos had flat teeth....hmmmm interesting

I say screw what others think on that, pass me a Steak!

It is natural for me to cook a steak, cut it, and eat it.What is there to argue?

[quote:47ef327478]CY, please inform me of why my teeth have grooves in them?[/quote:47ef327478]

First, I believe it is necessary to point out that the human teeth are not designed for meat, nor are they designed for vegetables.

Second, would this body's design justify it's usage? A man is endowed with a penis, but that does not justify rape. A gun is designed to kill, but that does not justify shooting someone. A knife is designed to stab, but that does not justify slitting someone's throat. And, if human fangs are designed by some sort of obscure chance, they are designed for eating flesh which means any flesh, be it from a human or another animal. They are also fully capable of grinding up vegetables, although not perfectly suited to such a usage. Clearly, design does not advocate a justification for usage in any sense at all.

[quote:47ef327478]I'm sorry, but I have to see this stuff for my own eyes.[/quote:47ef327478]

I'm sorry can I allow you to borrow a pair of glasses. I sited all my sources so if you don't believe me check them out!

OPRESS! KILL! EAT! DIE EARLY!

Find a Great Female!Fall in Love!Get married!Have Sex!

Go to the Store!Pick a nice Steak up! Go Home!Grill it! Chew piece by piece!Live now!

Dont forget the knife and penis part in there...

What are you trying to prove? Can you provide studies in which proves human teeth are designed to grind meat.

[quote:ca90653f82]My understanding from the Head of the UNC dentist office told me it was for tearing meat, and over the last thousands of years or so, they have actually came down because we do not tear meat with our teeth.[/quote:ca90653f82] i believe strongly in evolution and i am prone to say that human teeth originally were designed for non-meat foods. somewhere along the way, we began eating meat. maybe it was the ice age when most plants were dead. anyways, the teeth evolved during a stressful time in history when food was sparse and every bite counted. those with meat-eating teeth survived longer than those without. now the climate is restored so we can return to non-meat products and we still have the grooves in the teeth.

[quote:ca90653f82][i:ca90653f82]DaveTooner:[/i:ca90653f82]
As I said before, this thread is absoultely ridiculous.

I consider myself to have an above average knowledge of science and all of this blabber is ridiculous.[/quote:ca90653f82] if your so smart, say something that at least seems prudent, genius!
everybody conciders themselves above average except for those fighting depression.:D

[quote:8d2ddad87b="mundanus"]

if your so smart, say something that at least seems prudent, genius!
everybody conciders themselves above average except for those fighting depression.:D [/quote:8d2ddad87b]

Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I don't think I am some exceptionally smart person who is a science whiz. I'm not some anthropologist at a top university. I'm just a lowly artist.

That fact is that given my knowledge of science, be it great or small, I find it hard to believe that I would have NEVER read or heard anything saying humans are naturally vegetarians and that meat is the second leading cause of cancer. That's all I'm saying. Not that I'm some genius as you put it.

Tell ya what, though - I'll look into this mess and see what I can dig up. I'm not afraid to admit to being wrong.

If you would have read under the facts you would have seen that all these where documented by universities around the world and also such organizations as Journal of Animal Science, The New York Times, United States Department of Agriculture, The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health and several other respected organizations doctors and nutrients.

Yes, I saw that.

Do you see this:

"Confused youth is wrong." -- From a study at Yale University in June, 2002.

Documented proof. :rolleyes:

Of course, I'm not saying you made all that up. I'm just saying I'm not gonna say "Oh, look, he documented that. It's true!" I'd like to see it myself, that's all. Is that okay with you, Lefty?

I suggest you do look it . And until you can prove the Department of Agriculture wrong that study at Yale is not vaild.

I'm conducting a study of my own. How long will it take for me to drive to Ruth's Chris, order a 24 oz porterhouse and then consume it. I'm going to have to take 2 trips so that I can have a control group. I think in that trip I will order a salad too!

That comment is off-topic and it's beside the point I'd like to know why you stuff your face with cow ass... Thats all

Why are you attacking me? I haven't done anything to deserve this response. Why can't you respect my beliefs? I'm on the Atkins diet and have lowered my cholesterol considerably. I'm happy with my diet and I enjoy eating vegetables too as long as they adhere to my diet plan. Why are you so hostile? You cannot get along with anyone on this board for any length of time. Do you consider me your enemy? Why?

Administrator, why am I being attacked in open forum. My posts hardly warrant this response. Is this how it is at Allforums? I talk about things a bit on the lighter side and am a newcomer, but this is ridiculous. It seems that this board on the surface wants to give the image of all invited, and I can understand members squabbling over political issues, but attacking me because I eat steaks? What have I done to deserve that?

I'm not attacking you I'm simply asking you why you come in here and tell us what you next plan is. You have not made a comment that truly defines why we should eat meat. You come in here and I quote " I'm going to cook me a big steak and then eat it". I don't really care to see that every other day I've figured out by now you like to cook and eat steaks. I'd like to know why you feel the need to consume steak. If you would like to talk about things on a lighter side there are other sections. This is political in which they are serious discussions.

I don't consider you an enemy in fact I'd like to get to know you better. Thats why I want to know why you consume meat. I'm very sorry if you felt threatened by my comments it was not intended.

I get a long with many people and I have friends who consume meat like there is no tommorrow. I have friends who smoke and drink but I don't. You can be diffrent than I am I'd just like to know why.

I don't see any comments in my previous most which you could feel attacked except the simple question why do you consume it instead of telling us the next your going to consume it.

There was no need to blow this out of porportion it was intended as a joke partly when saying you stuff you face with cow ass (which you probably do when you consume meat) and secondly I'd just like to know why you do it thats not really an attack.

Just a small sampling of what I've found re: diet of early humans.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

This is from the Vegetarian Resource Group and written by John McArdle, Ph.D.

Haven't gotten around to looking up the cancer mess.

[quote:af066a786f]There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.[/quote:af066a786f]

This also is a myth. Can he prove we are supposed to eat meat? I can smoke and my body allows me to do so but does that mean I should smoke. I can eat meat but should I do it because my body is suited for it? I can rape does that mean I should do it?

[quote:5433a5cdad="ConfusedYouth"]


This also is a myth. Can he prove we are supposed to eat meat? I can smoke and my body allows me to do so but does that mean I should smoke. I can eat meat but should I do it because my body is suited for it? I can rape does that mean I should do it? [/quote:5433a5cdad]

Those are lame arguments, and the same can be made against your stance.

The point is it is a matter of speculation, therefore neither possition is flawless.

Regardless, the killing animals for meat is natural in nature in GENERAL, so I think that making it an ethical issue is weak. A moral issue, it is indeed.

[quote:6588b563df]Regardless, the killing animals for meat is natural in nature in GENERAL, so I think that making it an ethical issue is weak. A moral issue, it is indeed.[/quote:6588b563df]

It's also natural in nature for animals to rape should we now rape?

Hey Dave, hope you don't mind me bringing this up but I just got a Holland Grill as a present. My brother is coming by to help me put it together in the next few days. Imagine some sirloin tips and grilled bell peppers coming off that baby! Enough to wet my appetite. Anyone had any experience with these? I hear they're great!:D

[quote:b96f5dbcb2="ConfusedYouth"]


It's also natural in nature for animals to rape should we now rape? [/quote:b96f5dbcb2]

That is a ridiculous thing to say. Those are two completely different things.

First of all, I am sure that animal rape is not exactly very common.

Second of all, I am sure that animal rape is not considered normal animal behavior.

Third of all, I am sure that animals eating is very common.

And last of all, I am sure that animals eating is considered normal.

Again, I will say it. It is okay with me if eating meat is a moral issue for you. But when you tell me it is an ethical issue, that gets under my skin. You go right ahead and not eat meat, but do NOT tell me that I am doing something wrong when I do.

Question: If you were in charge of a nation, would you try to make eating meat illegal?

[quote:b5acf3d509]It is okay with me if eating meat is a moral issue for you. But when you tell me it is an ethical issue, that gets under my skin. [/quote:b5acf3d509] last time i checked, moral issues were ethical issues.
plus, i dont think CY or anybody else will ever tell you that eating meat is a [i:b5acf3d509]good[/i:b5acf3d509] thing

Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinion of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not so arbitrary. Look at some of the other things that have at one time been legal in the U.S.—child labor, human slavery, the oppression of women.

When we make a choice of what is right or wrong, is there anything in particular that we do - or that we should - value? Certainly, in moral concerns, self interest should not be applied. We shouldn't save a rich man over twenty poor men, simply because the rich man promises us a reward - it would not be ethically concerned if we made that choice. Nor should we value physical appearances; that is, to say, although assumptions through generalizations of physical appearances may prove to be correct at certain times - and even fruitful at others - it is in no means the proper method of moral consideration (in other words, someone cannot say person A deserves no rights because everyone like person A has trait B, which disqualifies them as a moral agent). One's gender should not be at question. And, considerably so, nor should one's race, species, class, or other scientific classification.

If there is a question in regards to the consideration of moral value, then the answer I can give is that by which would suit practicality. If a being has interests - either of avoiding pain, gaining pleasure, or future hopes and dreams - then this being deserves moral consideration and not only moral consideration, but they should be given an equal consideration of interests. Ethics is founded on the consideration of interests, be the consideration given to only members of one race, of one species, of one sex, or of one intellectual level, ethics is founded on the consideration of interests. An equal and unprejudiced consideration of interests would know no limits - human or subhuman, white or black, male or female, born or unborn, smart or stupid. All of the said parties will have interests in most cases (however, only in some cases when concerning the unborn) and it is the ability to have interests that one ought to be granted moral value. A being should have moral value because they have interests, as you and I do. They can feel pain and suffering, happiness and joy. And the consideration of their interests includes their right to life and liberty. And their right to life and liberty includes not being murdered.

[quote:fdc7ccee96="mundanus"]
last time i checked, moral issues were ethical issues.
plus, i dont think CY or anybody else will ever tell you that eating meat is a [i:fdc7ccee96]good[/i:fdc7ccee96] thing [/quote:fdc7ccee96]

That's where you are quite wrong, son. A moral issue is personal. An ethical issue applies to everyone in society.

For example, I am a Christian so something like using the Lord's name in vain would be a moral issue with me.

Something like murder, which is widely believed wrong for everyone, is an ethical issue.

well, i will check my usage of "moral" and "ethical" from now on.

Confused Youth. I thought u left no room for arguments all the way at the top. It is sad for me to see u repeat urself so often. If everyone just actually read what was written and used their brains to register the facts free from all bias, I don't think anyone would argue, but here I am with my own bias perhaps.

It just seems like common sense that other living creatures should be treated with.. well the respect that all living creatures should be treated with. I mean, did everyone who posted here actually read what was written? The points, are to me, undenyable!! It breaks my heart to see so much thought put into considering or arguing the idea when we can use our brain cells for more productive purposes.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I am merely venting.

Porgus, The 4 1/2 years you spent crafting your response was definitely worth it. It's so devastating I'll bet Confused Youth doesn't even respond.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Hilarious, Brooks.

I am a Christian so something like using the Lord's name in vain would be a moral issue with me.

Well, naturally.

Gosh....it makes perfect sense that for a human to use the name of the supreme omnipotent being *God*--who magically brought into existence all the matter in the universe-- in the "wrong" way would cause that all-powerful entity great distress, and that the speaking of such words can only be viewed as deeply, deeply improper and "immoral".

Are those people still on allforums?

Tooner was on here when I first joined and then disappeared, although he came back for a brief period this year I think. I wish FT hadn't responded to him - he may reappear!

It would really be nice if those people returned. This is one of the more thought out threads I have read.