Do you eat meat?

[Sentinel]

The previous poll on the issue went on from March 14, 2004 until today, with the following outcome: Yes - 277 (67.56%), No - 86 (20.98%), Very little - 47 (11.46%). Totally 410 members voted.

To see where our current membership stands on the issue of eating meat, I have closed it and started this new one. I also added a few new options. Feel free to continue any discussions from the previous thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=23061) in this one. Tell us why you have chosen your diet!

Personally I do eat meat. I love the taste of it and consider it healthy and nutritious.

[Jazzratt]

I eat meat, animal rights justifactions for being vegetarian don't hold much water with me. I'm proudly anthropocentric.

[Marukusu]

I really don't see the "revolutionary" in being a vegetarian/vegan. Yes, capitalist corporations make profit when I'm bying meat, but you can bet your ass that another (or the very same!) company makes profit when you buy your quorn beef or sallad. It practically doesn't matter what you eat, in the end some greedy capitalist CEO still gets more money in his pocket.
I love meat, especially pork. In fact I wouldn't mind some bacon right now...

[Delirium]

I eat meat but usually only the things i hunt myself. I have issues with the ethical treatment of animals in factory farms and am concerned with some of the heath issues of mass produced meat.

I have no problem with meat itself just the way it is produced.

[Pirate Utopian]

i heart meat, breakfast, lunch and dinner is not complete with out meat and if possible some diary liquids to drink

[Mujer Libre]

I eat meat, and don't have any problems with doing so, although I do have issues with current farming practices.

I don&#39;t eat all that much meat anyway, because I often just prefer the taste of vegies (and hang out with quite a few vegetarians/vegans) but I should eat more roo because it&#39;s much more eco-friendly than lamb. Which sucks, because though roo tastes quite good, I <3 lamb.

Edit: Good idea with the new stickies btw. :)

[Cryotank Screams]

Yes, I have no problems with eating meat.

[Louis Pio]

I eat meat and I love it. I have to admit though that I gradually switced to using more and more vegetables and less meat though. This is only because that my taste have changed for some reason.

On veganism the thing is I got a quite large hostility towards them, this comes from my teen years were I met to many self rightous hardcore vegans who would almost spit on anyone eating meat, this kinda turned me off on the idea, these people were the prime example of the "houlier than thou" mentality.

Of course we need to change our methods in farming, and maybe in time humans will stop eating meat. It will however not change from day to day. (and if it would the capitalists would have to kill a whole lot of animals because they wouldn&#39;t make money on them anymore)

[TC]

My issue with eating meat on a personal level is less ethical and more aesthetic; its hard to make a moral argument about not eating something thats dead and would have been killed whether or not you decided to eat it...but it personally upsets me to think about eating animals that i identify with and can feel empathy towards...in other words the cute ones.

So, i eat fish and shelfish because they aren&#39;t cute but dont&#39; eat birds, pigs, cows, lambs, etc.

[Sentinel]

To clarify what freeganism is about, in case someone like me until recently is unfamiliar to the concept:


Originally posted by Cthenthar+--> (Cthenthar) I&#39;ve often thought about different ways of living life more inline with my political beliefs (living a moral life as it were), but have found both vegetarianism and vegan both restricting, and even perhaps too extreme (I believe in the possibility of having animals on a small farm that I take good care of and perhaps could one day eat).

Then myself and some friends got more into stealing and dumpster diving food.

Then we came across freeganism.



Freeganism is the practice of consuming food that has been thrown away by someone else (e.g. supermarkets) in order to minimize the destructive impact consumption has on the environment.

Acting in this way, a Freegan has little responsibility for the material, energy and resources used in the production process of the goods he consumes since the goods have already exited the production-consumption cycle of money exchanged for goods.

In most developed countries, the quality demands and hygiene standards of consumers are so high that many foods stay perfectly edible for long periods of time after their expiry or "best before" dates. Naturally, the best seasons for freeganism pertaining to food goods are autumn and spring, when waste bins remain at refrigerator temperatures.

Freeganism in itself does not mean a person is following a certain kind of dietary behavior, though it is common that freegans practice vegetarianism or veganism.

Many people practicing this diet have been forced into it simply by lacking the income necessary to purchase food normally, rather than making a conscious decision to sustain themselves by scavenging when other choices are available.

Freeganism is also used to describe people who are vegan, &#39;unless it&#39;s free.&#39; Unlike the above, these people do not necessarily eat food that was already thrown away, but rather they eat non-vegan food that is offered to them, or that would otherwise be thrown away. However, they may often have the same motives, or they may simply be acquiescing to their friends, relatives, or coworkers attempts to feed them non-vegan food.


Though I do not yet fully live by this, I am attempting some sort of transition to it, and hence to live a much more authentic existence.[/b]


Link (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40533&hl=freeganism)

I&#39;m not into this lifestyle myself nor am I likely to ever be, but it&#39;s an interesting approach and I&#39;d like to know how popular it is among the left.


Originally posted by Mujer [email protected]
Edit: Good idea with the new stickies btw. :)

Thanks&#33; If you have any ideas you think I could use, please contact me&#33; :)


TragicClown
So, i eat fish and shelfish because they aren&#39;t cute but dont&#39; eat birds, pigs, cows, lambs, etc.

Funny, I don&#39;t like crabs mainly because they look so weird myself. :mellow:

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 11:56 pm


So, i eat fish and shelfish because they aren&#39;t cute but dont&#39; eat birds, pigs, cows, lambs, etc.
I did some time on a farm once, and i can promise you that all the genetically manipulated animals they actually use for food are pretty gross. i still have dreams about throwing lice powder onto the vents of factory farm chickens, which had hundreds of creepy crawly things crawling on &#39;em. bleeach&#33;


also, aren&#39;t shellfish a lower mollusk, and thus lacking a nervous system? i don&#39; see what the big deal is with eating them.



and to answer the thread, vegan for 6 years. for a few years i didn&#39;t even eat refined sugar because of the animal bone char used in the process of refinement, but i wussed out after 2 years of that.

i also, like TC, don&#39;t really like arguing the morality of animal rights. i just know that it makes me feel sad to see animals abused, feel pain, and killed for the luxury of a particular diet. i also know i have more guns than people on this board and would love to have an opportunity to use them.

[cb9's_unity]

I didn&#39;t answer any of them. I eat meat but kinda do find a problem with it. For a while i was seriously thining of becoming a vegetarian but i gave that up when i realized meat makes up a serious amount of my diet and i am unhealthily skninny, eating any less would probably kill me. I have now come to the belief that it is natural for creatures to eat eachother but because we are more advanced than other creatures we should treat them as well as we can before we use them.

[An archist]

Originally posted by cb9&#39;[email protected] 02, 2006 09:00 pm
I didn&#39;t answer any of them. I eat meat but kinda do find a problem with it. For a while i was seriously thining of becoming a vegetarian but i gave that up when i realized meat makes up a serious amount of my diet and i am unhealthily skninny, eating any less would probably kill me. I have now come to the belief that it is natural for creatures to eat eachother but because we are more advanced than other creatures we should treat them as well as we can before we use them.
I had the same problem and I&#39;m really skinny too, seriously, you should try it for a month or three, just eat more nuts, lintels, eggs and stuff and you&#39;ll have no problems whatsoever.

[RedLenin]

No, I do not eat meat. I find it repulsive and incredibly unappatising. I do have a problem with the way animals are treated on factory farms and I consider myself an animal welfarist, which is very different from an animal rights advocate. Animals do not have rights, but do deserve to be treated humanely and with respect. So for these reasons, as well as the fact that the factory farming industry is perhaps the most destructive capitalist industry that exists, I am a vegan.

I also tend to see that it is mostly anarchists who are vegetarians. Are there any vegetarian or vegan marxists out there?

[Luís Henrique]

Hey, this thread is antisemitic.

Where is the kosher option? ;)

Luís Henrique

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 03:49 am
No, I do not eat meat. I find it repulsive and incredibly unappatising. I do have a problem with the way animals are treated on factory farms and I consider myself an animal welfarist, which is very different from an animal rights advocate. Animals do not have rights, but do deserve to be treated humanely and with respect. So for these reasons, as well as the fact that the factory farming industry is perhaps the most destructive capitalist industry that exists, I am a vegan.

I also tend to see that it is mostly anarchists who are vegetarians. Are there any vegetarian or vegan marxists out there?
Count One :D .

But my vegetarianism has more to do with my families hindu religious beliefs than to do with Marxism. But i have during my teens eaten every possible meat(Chicken,Mutton,Goat, Fish,Crab,Deer,Indian Monitor Lizard and beef(the main meat specifially forbidden even by sects who eat meat)).but abandoned eating all meat on aesthetic reasons TragicClown has posted and not taken continuosly for 4 years.at the same time i donot agree with advertising or advocating vegetarianism . people should decide for themselves.

[Hiero]

You know what is really nice meat, goat. It doesn&#39;t seem to be that popular though. I have only had it once, the back legs of a kid. Really tender and light tasting. I recomend it for people who don&#39;t like the tougher meats like cows and lambs.

[Bretty123]

I am Vegan as I have posted in the other threads several times. I&#39;ve given great arguments as to why I am vegan and I do not advocate any sort of ethical or moral standpoint because I think it is an arbitrary way of argument given the topic.

My three main concerns and reasons why I&#39;ve changed [I&#39;m also compassionate towards them but that deals more with things such as the fur trade]

1. Economics
2. Health
3. Environmental

[Tetsuo]

I eat meat and feel not the slightest twinge of guilt about it. This is partly because I&#39;m of the opinion that the problems with factory farming are a result of production of meat under capitalism rather than production of meat in itself, and partly because I&#39;m a selfish fuck who likes bacon too much :P

[Bretty123]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 01:24 am
I eat meat and feel not the slightest twinge of guilt about it. This is partly because I&#39;m of the opinion that the problems with factory farming are a result of production of meat under capitalism rather than production of meat in itself, and partly because I&#39;m a selfish fuck who likes bacon too much :P
The form of economics the factory farming takes place in doesn&#39;t matter at all, it just changes the focus of the problem.

Environmental and health problems remain, and the economic problems of misuse of resources remains.

[bcbm]

I don&#39;t eat meat, but I do eat dairy and eggs. I used to be into that animal liberation jazz, but now its more out of habit than anything.

[Noah]

I love meat.

[Yazman]

I love eating meat and will never give it up.

[RedAnarchist]

I eat meat, but not so much (mainly just chicken, ham, beef and sausages) and I prefer fruit and vegetables. I&#39;m considering becoming vegetarian or vegan (at high school, two of my best friends were vegetarians and, talking about it with them, i&#39;ve found that they don&#39;t miss meat at all). I&#39;ve voted yes, but only certain kinds.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

I eat meat, mainly because its tasty

[Fawkes]

Choices 4 and 5 are the same thing. I used to be a vegan and now I&#39;m a vegetarian. I switched for health reasons. I don&#39;t have a problem with eating meat, it&#39;s just the way that the animals are treated that bothers me.

[La Comédie Noire]

I do eat meat and have no problem with it. First we must focus on class struggle and reveloutionizing human society before we can focus on anything else. Maybe in the future society will see eating meat as both morally & physically wrong. We sure can&#39;t rely on the capitalists to do anything about it.

[Sentinel]

Choices 4 and 5 are the same thing.

I guess they can be, but what I meant with #5 was a person who doesn&#39;t eat any products that come from animals but wears leather clothes etc. Basically a person who follows such a diet only because he thinks it&#39;s healthy, or simply dislikes all animal products, but isn&#39;t into the &#39;animal liberation&#39; bullshit.

[Palmares]

Freegan-core


Originally posted by From my myspace (eek&#33;) page
A reasoning for my freeganism (from a blog on crimethinc by "Adam" http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...9-9277b5f5911b) (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1462254&blogID=36325533&MyToken=c9b2acd3-737d-4371-bd09-9277b5f5911b))

Freeganism: What it is and what it ain&#39;t

A lot of vegans really don&#39;t "get" freeganism.

They are under the inaccurate impression that freeganism refers to a lifestyle where you eat meat "as long as its free." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and depth of freegan ideology.

They see freeganism as an excuse to not be vegan.

They don&#39;t realize that many freegans are entirely vegan.

To them, this would be a paradox.

How can you be entirely vegan if your freegan, if freegans are people who eat animal products as long as they are free?

Answer: because that&#39;s not what freeganism is.

An analogy:

Anarchism DOESN&#39;T mean believing in chaos, destruction, and disorder but many people have heard the critics more than the advocates to the point where they start beleiveing the criticism is the actual definition of the contect.

Now freeganism refers to an anti-consumerist lifestyle that examines at a very deep level how our purchasing of ANY commodity under capitalism supports oppression in a myriad of forms.

Freeganism is an explicit critique of consumerist veganism, which freegans see as narrow and simplistic, albeit perhaps a step in the right direction. Freegans point to the hidden layers of complexity in the production of everyday goods,even vegan ones, revealing worker exploitation, pollution, killing of wildlife, large scale consumption of fossil fuels, forced displacement of indigenous people, increased power and influence for socially unjust corporations fueled by our dollars, etc.

Consumerist vegans do not like being criticized. They are used to being the ones doing the finger pointing and being able to label themselves cruelty free. It makes them uncomfortable to have someone suggest that their lifestyle contributes to oppression.

Therefore they sidestep the freegan critique entirely and attempt to change the subject by focusing on the fact that some freegans (not all) feel that since retailers care about what we BUY and not what we USE, there is nothing inherently ethically wrong with using products whose production methods we disagree with if they would otherwise go to waste and we are not driving further demand by using them.

This is similar to when social justice activists called on their meat eating and specieism choose to talk about the perceived racism and classism of animal rights advocates. While this may be a legitimate criticism of many animal activists, its also a bait and switch that shifts focus to disagreeable things about animal activists to take attention away from the bigoted attitudes and oppressive practices of the social justice activists.

For tunnel vision consumerist vegans, the world breaks down into two categories good (vegan) and evil (non-vegan). This framework does not allow for the notion that veganism isn&#39;t all that good or that some non-vegan ways of consuming within specific contexts might not be that evil (specifically, consuming without providing an incentive for further production or other forms of validation for the producer.).

For example, animal rights oriented vegans who have zero tolerance of animal cruelty in any form seem amazingly willing to overlook the incidental and deliberate killing of wildlife in the production of the crops that they eat, or the detrimental impacts on wildlife of massive use of petroleum in operating farm machinery and transporting goods to market (oil spills, air and water pollution--all deadly to animals). They pay little attention to the destruction of habitat and consequent wildlife death connected to the expansion of farmlands. They ignore the killing of fish who are sucked into cooling systems by power plants on river banks-- power plants that provide energy for the factories that make the processed junk that many vegans are so fond of-- boca burgers, not dogs, etc.

On the other hand, freegans take these things into consideration, along with the impacts of capitalist/industrial production systems on workers, indigenous people, and the environment. Freegans are critical of conventional vegetarianism, feeling that it is reflects a lack of understanding of the inherent oppressiveness of mass production under capitalism, and inaccurately labels products as "cruelty-free" that, in fact, involve a great deal of cruelty in their production.

To retain the moral high ground, consumerist vegans thus need to find some way to discredit freegans, just as self-righteous social justice activists need an excuse to feel morally pious while ignoring criticism of their complicity in the murder of nonhuman animals. For the social justice activists, the animal activists prejudices allow them to take the high ground, shifting from critiqued to critic. By emphasising the meat consumption of freegans in gross disproportion to its overall importance to the freegan lifestyle or ideology, consumerist vegans are able to shift the entire debate around freeganism to one about the ethics of consuming discarded animal products, instead of one about the ethics of purchasing vegan commodities produced in an oppressive manner.

Because consumerist vegans eat meat neither from purchased or recovered sources, there is no moral challenge for them in doing this. They can maintain the position they are most comfortable with-- the position of the pious vegans scolding the deviant, selfish, cruel, impure, undisciplined meat eaters.

At the same time, they altogether ignore the range of other issues brought to the fore by freeganism, issues consumerist veganism does nothing to address, such as waste.

Freegans are deeply concerned with the large scale waste of useable commodities, including food. Freegans frequently recover food, clothing, furniture, literature, computers, toiletries, art supplies--all sorts of goods regularly discarded by retailers, businesses, homes, and other institutions.in our throwaway society. In the United States, according to a recent University of Arizona study, 50% of all food is wasted, often while still perfectly useable. Freegans account for most of all of their dietary needs by recovering wasted foods that have been discarded in perfect shape for reasons like overordering at retail stores. In some cases goods are discarded before they even see a store shelf, guaranteeing freegans can eat food of equal quality to purchasers.

But what about the question the vegans raise?

Are freegans being immoral when they eat meat?



As mentioned above, many freegans are strict vegans. Others are willing to eat dairy, egg, or meat products to varying degrees (meat-eating freegans are called "meagans")if and only if they are recovered from refuse.

Freegans who DO eat meat do so using the following logic:

1) If one studies the complex chain of production in producing ANY mass produced consumer good, animal, worker, and environmental exploitation can be found throughout the various stages of production--even for items marketed as "cruelty-free." For example, vegan, organic produce is transported to market in trucks that splatter insects and burn fossil fuels, contributing to the killing of wildlife in ocean oil spills and open oil pits in rainforests.

2) Since all foods that we buy cause suffering and ecological destruction, the divide between "cruel" animal products and cruelty-free" vegan ones is a false one. This is not to say that veganism is not a step in the right direction, since MOST (but not all)vegan foods require less stages of production than meat foods and thus involve less stages of destructive production impacts (e.g. eating grain is more efficient than feeding to cattle). But it does reduce the dichotomy between "good" vegan and "evil" meat foods, suggesting that we may not want to purchase items in EITHER category.

3) In a capitalist economy, our participation and complicity in production and marketing of goods is at point of purchase. Producers don&#39;t care what we do with goods so long as we BUY them. We could buy steaks and use them as hood ornaments for all beef producers care-- they just want the money.

4) Therefore, we lend our support to animal agriculture not by EATING meat, but by BUYING meat.

5) Recovering goods that would otherwise go to waste is a positive act that reduces landfill space consumption while eliminating our need to contribute to more resource consumption by additional purchasing.

6) Because vegan and non-vegan goods BOTH contribute to injustice, and because our consumption of discarded items does not contribute to increased demand for them or profits for their manufacturers, there is no morally significant difference between consuming discarded meat products or discarded vegan products.

7) To torture and kill animals, consume natural resources and exploit workers to create a product, only to have that product go to waste is deeply disrespectful to the animals, workers, and ecological resources that went into the creation of that product. Among animals, the body of a dead animal is food. We do more to honor that animal by allowing the animals&#39; body to sustain life, to be eaten by another animal (a human), than to throw that animal&#39;s body into a landfill, a human invention that correlates with nothing in the nonhuman world. Even burying corpses as a way of honoring them is a human custom that makes little sense to impose on other species. Some meagans go so far as to see eating animal flesh under these circumstances as a more DUTY of respect to the animals who were killed and whose corpses then discarded unconsumed.

Freegans who remain vegan either find the notion of eating meat and other animal products viscerally repugnant, unhealthy or do not agree that consuming animal bodies is an appropriate way to show respect to those animals.

Overall,among freegans the eating or non-eating of meat that has been discarded simply isn&#39;t viewed as an important question, though many consider PURCHASING meat to be an abomination. Freegans feel that non-freegan vegetarians overemphasize on this question with regards to the overall ideology of freeganism as a result of a simplistic understanding of the relationship between capitalism, mass production, and exploitation. Freegans accuse non-freegan vegetarians of false piety, suggesting that their emphasis on the non-vegetarianism of some freegans is a bait-and-switch that allows them to shift focus away from non-freegan vegetarians having to take responsibility for the destructive impacts of the vegetarian commodities that they buy.

[Sean]

I&#39;ll eat anything if its going free, but not for any reasons deeper than being cheap. Cheaganism, if you will. :P
I get the anti-consumerism points of being "freegan", but in my opinion overanalysing everything you put in your mouth is an eating disorder. Stay out of my bins.

[Pawn Power]

I try not to eat things that make me feel like shit, i.e. really greasy foods . Other than that if its tasty i&#39;ll eat it and i think most foods are tasty.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:04 pm

Choices 4 and 5 are the same thing.

I guess they can be, but what I meant with #5 was a person who doesn&#39;t eat any products that come from animals but wears leather clothes etc. Basically a person who follows such a diet only because he thinks it&#39;s healthy, or simply dislikes all animal products, but isn&#39;t into the &#39;animal liberation&#39; bullshit.
Vegetarians eat everything but meat. Vegans don&#39;t eat any animal products. Whatever though, who cares.

[Leo]

If I can&#39;t eat meat, I don&#39;t want your revolution ;)

[liberationjunky]

Meat tastes good and humans are afterall Carnivores. Animals in nature eat other animals its not like humans are doing anything different. We&#39;re abiding but our nature so what could be wrong with that.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 09:13 pm
Meat tastes good and humans are afterall Carnivores.
We&#39;re omnivores, not that it makes a huge difference to your statement.

[Comrade J]

Mankind has been eating meat for thousands of years, why would I break the chain and stop now?

Btw, that was rhetorical, I&#39;m sure the vegans have a great answer they&#39;d love to share, perhaps mentioning cruelty to chickens and an abundance of seaweed or something, but quite frankly I enjoy animal flesh too much to care. :)

http://meatamanda.illnourished.com/images/meat.gif

(the amount of huge cocks I saw when google-searching &#39;meat&#39; :o )

[which doctor]

I used to be a vegetarian...for a week.

I eat meat, but I like fish and other seafood a lot more. I wouldn&#39;t mind becoming a pescatarian but have chosen not to for know since its near impossible to find fresh seafood around me.

[bezdomni]

I don&#39;t eat meat.

It&#39;s more of a personal preference than anything else. I don&#39;t make a fuss over it or anything.

Although I would encourage a person to be vegetarian if they were already thinking about it or something...but I almost never bring it up.

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 09:29 am
I&#39;ll eat anything if its going free, but not for any reasons deeper than being cheap. Cheaganism, if you will. :P
I get the anti-consumerism points of being "freegan", but in my opinion overanalysing everything you put in your mouth is an eating disorder. Stay out of my bins.
Your bins? Overanalysis is predicated on something that doesn&#39;t need or isn&#39;t applicable to be analysed in such a way.

I disagree vehemently for the reasons given.

Fuck dude, I&#39;m hungry, and i love free stuff&#33;

[ihaterockandroll]

I can not believe the utter selfishness of the some of the people on this board who are meant to be &#39;lefties&#39;, surely you believe in an ideology that wants an end to exploitation, do you not feel like a hypocrite when you are eating an animal?

There is nothing natural about the way modern farms operate.


If I can&#39;t eat meat, I don&#39;t want your revolution

If you can&#39;t not eat meat, I don&#39;t want you in my revolution.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 02:11 pm
I can not believe the utter selfishness of the some of the people on this board who are meant to be &#39;lefties&#39;, surely you believe in an ideology that wants an end to exploitation, do you not feel like a hypocrite when you are eating an animal?

No. I was gifted with a brain at birth, and therefore I do not find eating meat incongrous with a human liberation struggle. You on the other hand, appear to have been born with a nest of wasps in your skull - I cannot think of any other way to describe why you&#39;d come out with the above statement.


There is nothing natural about the way modern farms operate. Well observed. Anything else you want to reveal to us? That certian species of bear have been known to shit in woods?

Could you tell us exactly why it matters that it&#39;s "unnatural"?



If I can&#39;t eat meat, I don&#39;t want your revolution

If you can&#39;t not eat meat, I don&#39;t want you in my revolution. There&#39;s more of us, and we&#39;re better fed. :angry:

[Knight of Cydonia]

meat are YUMMY :wub:

[Fawkes]

I can not believe the utter selfishness of the some of the people on this board who are meant to be &#39;lefties&#39;, surely you believe in an ideology that wants an end to exploitation, do you not feel like a hypocrite when you are eating an animal?
Eating an animal is not exploiting it, however, the manner in which they are generally treated before being killed and while they are being killed needs to be changed, therefore I sympathise with you there. Exploiting an animal is testing lipstick on it or making some ugly fur coat for some snobby rich lady to wear.


There is nothing natural about the way modern farms operate.
Generally speaking, the conditions in modern animal farms are very bad, which is why I am an animal welfarist.


If you can&#39;t not eat meat, I don&#39;t want you in my revolution.
Nobody ever said that you couldn&#39;t not eat meat. Vegetarians and vegans would be welcomed just as much as anyone else into a revolutionary group.

I understand the way that you feel because I used to feel similar. I used to actually believe that meat would be outlawed post-revolution. While I am still a vegetarian for personal reasons, I definitely no longer hold on to those beliefs that I once held. Living conditions for livestock should definitely be improved, but it is both naive and totally unplausible to think that meat could ever be outlawed.

[ihaterockandroll]

Eating an animal is not exploiting it

Isn&#39;t it? I suppose it&#39;s for their benefit then?


which is why I am an animal welfarist.

Which part of welfare involves murder?

And I&#39;m not even going to reply to Jazzrat&#39;s comments.

[ihaterockandroll]

Eating an animal is not exploiting it

Isn&#39;t it? I suppose it&#39;s for their benefit then?


which is why I am an animal welfarist.

Which part of welfare involves murder?

And I&#39;m not even going to reply to Jazzrat&#39;s comments.

[Leo]

I can not believe the utter selfishness of the some of the people on this board who are meant to be &#39;lefties&#39;, surely you believe in an ideology that wants an end to exploitation, do you not feel like a hypocrite when you are eating an animal?

Before trying to solve the quarrels between humans and animals, I would kindly suggest you to try to solve the quarrels between animals themselves. I mean, try convincing lions to stop eating deers, or go and actively protect deers from lions or even organize a deer revolt against their lion oppressors. Geez man, you are so hypocritical, sitting in a city in front of a computer and criticizing our eating habits while doing nothing to protect those poor victims of carnivorous oppression in nature.

I mean come on, think of poor deers like this one (http://wildlink.wilderness.net/images/wildlife/mt.lion_kill.jpg)...


If you can&#39;t not eat meat, I don&#39;t want you in my revolution.

Yeah, I&#39;ve noticed that you don&#39;t want humans in your revolution.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:35 am

Eating an animal is not exploiting it

Isn&#39;t it? I suppose it&#39;s for their benefit then?


which is why I am an animal welfarist.

Which part of welfare involves murder?

And I&#39;m not even going to reply to Jazzrat&#39;s comments.
It&#39;s totally natural to eat an animal, it&#39;s how the cycle of life works.

I don&#39;t considering killing an animal to eat it murder. As I stated before, it is part of the cycle of life.

[bretty]

Your argument doesn&#39;t stand for very long. Your relating animal nature with human nature. Are humans part of the feline species? No, they are not.

Thats one of the biggest mistakes that people make when arguing against a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle based on ethics. Because you assume people want to end the killing of animals beyond what we humans do.

This is to Leo.

[Fawkes]

The fact of the matter is that humans are animals, and it is totally natural for us, being omnivores, to eat other animals. And before you come at me saying that I am cruel and mean, I am a vegetarian and at one time was a vegan because I don&#39;t like killing animals.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:58 pm
Your argument doesn&#39;t stand for very long. Your relating animal nature with human nature. Are humans part of the feline species? No, they are not.
Humans are animals, fucknut. Regardless of whether they are feline or not they are still omnivores and omnivores do eat meat. I, however, don&#39;t like that as an argument. Personally I think it rests with the vegetarian or vegan to explain what is so damaging to the human body about eating meat that we should stop.

I assume no one is stupid enough to appeal to an animals &#39;rights&#39;.


Thats one of the biggest mistakes that people make when arguing against a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle based on ethics. Because you assume people want to end the killing of animals beyond what we humans do. It&#39;s a logical extention of your argument to illustrate its patent absurdity.

[Leo]

Your argument doesn&#39;t stand for very long.

Possibly because it was an attempt to push animal lovers to take action in mother nature and therefore away from here and in fact any place on earth where actual political issues are discussed rather than a real argument?

[An archist]

Do you know that for every kilo of meat you need about 100 kilos of grain and 500 litres of water?
The only reason it isn&#39;t expensive as hell is because the meat-industry is heavily subsidized by the goverment.
If you don&#39;t care for the ethic argument, at least take one look at the planet you&#39;re destroying.

[Fawkes]

^^ Another one of the reasons why I don&#39;t eat it. However, it goes against fundamental human nature to deny anyone the right to eat meat.

[ihaterockandroll]

I think it rests with the vegetarian or vegan to explain what is so damaging to the human body about eating meat that we should stop.

There is nothing damaging to our body, and what is wrong with an appeal to animal rights? We seem to spend quite a lot of time appealing to worker&#39;s rights? It is unnessecary to eat an animal, it is destroying the environment to continue to eat animals.

I have no problem other a lion eating a deer, we cannot expect a lion not to. We on the other hand are fully disposed not to eat meat, and when you take into account the effect the meat industry has on the environment and the animals involved then I don&#39;t see why there is any reason to eat meat.

[Fawkes]

The current methods we use to eat meat are destructive to the environment, that&#39;s why I am an animal welfarist and believe that animal farming methods must reformed.

[Coggeh]

i think vegetarians hold water with the whole brutality to animals agruement and i respect them , but as im writing this im eating a sausage so .... :P .. it tastes gooood :)

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:32 am

I think it rests with the vegetarian or vegan to explain what is so damaging to the human body about eating meat that we should stop.

There is nothing damaging to our body, and what is wrong with an appeal to animal rights? We seem to spend quite a lot of time appealing to worker&#39;s rights? It is unnessecary to eat an animal, it is destroying the environment to continue to eat animals.

I have no problem other a lion eating a deer, we cannot expect a lion not to. We on the other hand are fully disposed not to eat meat, and when you take into account the effect the meat industry has on the environment and the animals involved then I don&#39;t see why there is any reason to eat meat.
Good point .. ah shudnt have eating that meat ... think i might become a vege ,...... :blink: very convincing stuff

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 14, 2007 05:18 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 14, 2007 05:18 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2007 04:58 pm
Your argument doesn&#39;t stand for very long. Your relating animal nature with human nature. Are humans part of the feline species? No, they are not.
Humans are animals, fucknut. Regardless of whether they are feline or not they are still omnivores and omnivores do eat meat. I, however, don&#39;t like that as an argument. Personally I think it rests with the vegetarian or vegan to explain what is so damaging to the human body about eating meat that we should stop.

I assume no one is stupid enough to appeal to an animals &#39;rights&#39;.


Thats one of the biggest mistakes that people make when arguing against a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle based on ethics. Because you assume people want to end the killing of animals beyond what we humans do. It&#39;s a logical extention of your argument to illustrate its patent absurdity. [/b]
Humans are animals but thats not the point. Your relating human nature with a different species. It&#39;s a very poor argument, regardless of what you call me afterwards...poopy-head.

And I don&#39;t think Feline&#39;s are usually omnivores either. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:32 am

I think it rests with the vegetarian or vegan to explain what is so damaging to the human body about eating meat that we should stop.

There is nothing damaging to our body, and what is wrong with an appeal to animal rights? We seem to spend quite a lot of time appealing to worker&#39;s rights? It is unnessecary to eat an animal, it is destroying the environment to continue to eat animals.
Take that argument to the other thread, on the environmental impact of wating meat. A lot of things we do are unecessary and damaging to the environment (most of industry) - do you advocate preventing that too?


I have no problem other a lion eating a deer, we cannot expect a lion not to. We on the other hand are fully disposed not to eat meat, and when you take into account the effect the meat industry has on the environment and the animals involved then I don&#39;t see why there is any reason to eat meat. That&#39;s nerither here nor there, humans are omnivores therfore you need to tell me why homo sapiens-sapiens should become herbivore.


Humans are animals but thats not the point. Your relating human nature with a different species. It&#39;s a very poor argument, regardless of what you call me afterwards...poopy-head. You still haven&#39;t shown how vegetarianism is esential to this "human nature"(please define).


And I don&#39;t think Feline&#39;s are usually omnivores either. Where did I make that assumption, hunchbrain?

[Fawkes]

You still haven&#39;t shown how vegetarianism is esential to this "human nature"(please define).
I think what s/he is trying to say is that humans, though by far not the only animals to show emotion and compassion, are more capable of seeing what is wrong with eating meat than other animals are.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:26 pm

You still haven&#39;t shown how vegetarianism is esential to this "human nature"(please define).
I think what s/he is trying to say is that humans, though by far not the only animals to show emotion and compassion, are more capable of seeing what is wrong with eating meat than other animals are.
Compassion is overated when compared to logic, which is our greatest improvement of other species.

[Fawkes]

And there are some logical arguments for vegetarianism.

[Jazzratt]

I&#39;ve yet to see one presented here.

[Fawkes]

Well, do you want logical arguments for it relevant in our current world or ones that are always relevant? An example of what I mean is how the meat industry is very destructive to the environment, yet, that could be changed relatively easily I would assume. An example of one that is always relevant is that some people argue meat is just plain unhealthy for you. There is very conflicting evidence to support this though.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 08:48 pm
Well, do you want logical arguments for it relevant in our current world or ones that are always relevant? An example of what I mean is how the meat industry is very destructive to the environment, yet, that could be changed relatively easily I would assume. An example of one that is always relevant is that some people argue meat is just plain unhealthy for you. There is very conflicting evidence to support this though.
So the first argument is irrelevent and the second one isn&#39;t very strongly grounded. I&#39;ll stick to steaks thanks.

[Fawkes]

The first argument is not irrelevant, but it could easily be made irrelevant. Currently however, it still can be used as a logical reason to not eat meat. You&#39;re right, the second argument does hold very little water. I have no problem with you sticking to steak, I believe you have every right to eat it.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 15, 2007 07:57 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; January 15, 2007 07:57 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 10:32 am

I think it rests with the vegetarian or vegan to explain what is so damaging to the human body about eating meat that we should stop.

There is nothing damaging to our body, and what is wrong with an appeal to animal rights? We seem to spend quite a lot of time appealing to worker&#39;s rights? It is unnessecary to eat an animal, it is destroying the environment to continue to eat animals.
Take that argument to the other thread, on the environmental impact of wating meat. A lot of things we do are unecessary and damaging to the environment (most of industry) - do you advocate preventing that too?


I have no problem other a lion eating a deer, we cannot expect a lion not to. We on the other hand are fully disposed not to eat meat, and when you take into account the effect the meat industry has on the environment and the animals involved then I don&#39;t see why there is any reason to eat meat. That&#39;s nerither here nor there, humans are omnivores therfore you need to tell me why homo sapiens-sapiens should become herbivore.


Humans are animals but thats not the point. Your relating human nature with a different species. It&#39;s a very poor argument, regardless of what you call me afterwards...poopy-head. You still haven&#39;t shown how vegetarianism is esential to this "human nature"(please define).


And I don&#39;t think Feline&#39;s are usually omnivores either. Where did I make that assumption, hunchbrain? [/b]

Regardless of whether they are feline or not they are still omnivores and omnivores do eat meat

This makes it seem like your saying regardless of the animal, even if they are feline they are omnivore.


You still haven&#39;t shown how vegetarianism is esential to this "human nature"(please define).

I&#39;ve already stated why I do it. I won&#39;t comment on human nature because it would be redundant for me to tell you what I think human nature is. All I can simply state are my solid reasonings why I chose to become vegan (which I have in two threads now). Just go look back in this thread to see if you want to learn more.

Also I have a chart that compares omnivorous/carnivorous/human/herbivore anatomies.. or it might just be the 3 latter and not omnivorous, and the results show that our anatomy is much more like that of the herbivore.

I&#39;m not saying that every piece of meat will kill you, but obviously over time you can see things like heart disease etc. take hold on people when they are unhealthy, and my diet is cholesterol free etc. so I avoid those things in life and am in great shape.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:56 pm


Regardless of whether they are feline or not they are still omnivores and omnivores do eat meat

This makes it seem like your saying regardless of the animal, even if they are feline they are omnivore.
Does it or do you just fail at reading comprehension?

&#39;They&#39; is clearly being used in this sentence as a way of saying &#39;humans&#39;, as indicated by the context of the previous sentence. Therfore it could just as easily be read


Regardless of whether humans are feline or not humans are still omnivores and omnivores do eat meat (changes highlighted because you appear to be in need of the help).



You still haven&#39;t shown how vegetarianism is esential to this "human nature"(please define).

I&#39;ve already stated why I do it. Why you do anything is entirely irrelevant.

I won&#39;t comment on human nature because it would be redundant for me to tell you what I think human nature is. All I can simply state are my solid reasonings why I chose to become vegan (which I have in two threads now). Just go look back in this thread to see if you want to learn more. I have looked at all your arguments for veganism, yet I still eat meat. This is because you are wrong and have yet to prove otherwise.


Also I have a chart that compares omnivorous/carnivorous/human/herbivore anatomies.. or it might just be the 3 latter and not omnivorous, and the results show that our anatomy is much more like that of the herbivore. Fascinating. Where is this chart?


I&#39;m not saying that every piece of meat will kill you, but obviously over time you can see things like heart disease etc. take hold on people when they are unhealthy, and my diet is cholesterol free etc. so I avoid those things in life and am in great shape. Really, my diet is high in protien, I don&#39;t take any vitamin supplements and eat large amounts of fruit & veg. I&#39;m in fairly good shape for a smoker and I suspect if I gave up the booze & fags I&#39;d be in brilliant shape.

[Comrade J]

I think these arguments are all well and good, but it appears you&#39;ve been skirting around the fundamental reason for eating meat - it tastes fucking nice. Bacon, sausage, steak etc. - all nice, I don&#39;t care if an animal died for me to enjoy a nice bacon sandwich, we&#39;ve been eating animals for millenia, we&#39;re omnivorous and it&#39;s readily available, why stop now?

[bretty]

Well your asking for reasons why the vegan lifestyle is appropriate, So I told you to look at my previous threads. If you feel it is irrelevant then thats your choice.

Whether you think we&#39;re wrong is also irrelevant unless you provide evidence and arguments as to why.

[I&#39;ve added the chart if your interested]

I have to say your probably one of the least kind people I&#39;ve talked to on the subject. You could at least remain a decent person since we&#39;re both on this site we seem to have similar interests at heart so I&#39;d ask you to stop being rude please and thank you. Although seeing from your signature, you seem to enjoy identifying yourself as a horrible person, so be it.

Also in responde to your claim about healthiness, I think you&#39;ll be fine in eating meat however things like organic local meat are much better then something like mcdonalds because of all the crap in the food and also the hormones and chemicals they add. It inevitably all goes into you. Personally I feel much healthier as a vegan, as I&#39;ve lost alot of health problems I had when I was younger. Abd if you read some of the research they have done, you&#39;ll see that even if you eat meat and live healthily there are alot of indications that unhealthy diets of meat can cause alot of problems. So I choose to stay away from it.

Also to Comrade J. I&#39;ll just say this without trying to start a huge discussion as alot of these discussions are becoming incredibly circular. Vegetarians and Vegans have been around millenia too just about the same amount as communal societies began to have sedentary agriculture etc.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:02 am
Well your asking for reasons why the vegan lifestyle is appropriate, So I told you to look at my previous threads. If you feel it is irrelevant then thats your choice.
I was asking why it was appropriate for humans in general You&#39;re inconsequential - I couldn&#39;t give a fuck what you eat.


Whether you think we&#39;re wrong is also irrelevant unless you provide evidence and arguments as to why. When did I say think you&#39;re wrong? I don&#39;t think you&#39;re wrong. You have yet to produce any evidence, apart from your joke of a chart, which I&#39;ll discuss below. So far, without your producing evidence to the contrary I understand that you&#39;re wrong and, not only are you wrong you&#39;re a grotesquely ugly freak (if you don&#39;t get what that was a reference to I suggest you watch the Brass Eye episode on Animals).


[I&#39;ve added the chart if your interested] To be fair I did read it, and a few things set of alarm bells in my head - firstly the source - a vegetarian society, which I&#39;m sure you&#39;re aware would have something of a vested interest in showing humans to be herbivore. It also had a little bit on intellectual and, more worryingly, moral evolution - morality should really not enter into it. The vegetarian society of singapore have not indicated any of their sources, especially on the claim that omnivores have no enzymes in their salavia. The fact that the omnivorous structure looked so close to the carnivorous one was also worrying to me, how do those poor omnviores digest vegetable matter if they appear not to have been set up to take it in? Do you have a more objective and scientific document?


I have to say your probably one of the least kind people I&#39;ve talked to on the subject. Lucky you, I&#39;ve been quite restrianed. I&#39;m sure the real world will teach you a lesson though - not everybody is as kind as me :lol:
You could at least remain a decent person since we&#39;re both on this site we seem to have similar interests at heart Not on this issue we don&#39;t.
so I&#39;d ask you to stop being rude please and thank you. Please and thank you? Hopw presumptious - it kind of assumes I&#39;ll stop treating you like the idiot you are just because you asked nicely.
Although seeing from your signature, you seem to enjoy identifying yourself as a horrible person, so be it. I&#39;m not a horrible person, I&#39;m the eternal sun of mankind&#33;


Also in responde to your claim about healthiness, I think you&#39;ll be fine in eating meat however things like organic local meat are much better then something like mcdonalds because of all the crap in the food and also the hormones and chemicals they add. It inevitably all goes into you. Personally I feel much healthier as a vegan, as I&#39;ve lost alot of health problems I had when I was younger. Abd if you read some of the research they have done, you&#39;ll see that even if you eat meat and live healthily there are alot of indications that unhealthy diets of meat can cause alot of problems. So I choose to stay away from it. Most people recommending vegan diets are quack nutritionists or fringe biologists. I would like you to produce some of this "research" that "they" have done, which shows conclusivly that meat is toxic to humans.


Also to Comrade J. I&#39;ll just say this without trying to start a huge discussion as alot of these discussions are becoming incredibly circular. Vegetarians and Vegans have been around millenia too just about the same amount as communal societies began to have sedentary agriculture etc. I found Comrade_J&#39;s "meat is fucking delicious" approach extremely persuasive. In fact I wnet out and got a large mixed kebab to celebrate.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 16, 2007 05:14 pm--> (Jazzratt &#064; January 16, 2007 05:14 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 02:02 am
Well your asking for reasons why the vegan lifestyle is appropriate, So I told you to look at my previous threads. If you feel it is irrelevant then thats your choice.
I was asking why it was appropriate for humans in general You&#39;re inconsequential - I couldn&#39;t give a fuck what you eat.


Whether you think we&#39;re wrong is also irrelevant unless you provide evidence and arguments as to why. When did I say think you&#39;re wrong? I don&#39;t think you&#39;re wrong. You have yet to produce any evidence, apart from your joke of a chart, which I&#39;ll discuss below. So far, without your producing evidence to the contrary I understand that you&#39;re wrong and, not only are you wrong you&#39;re a grotesquely ugly freak (if you don&#39;t get what that was a reference to I suggest you watch the Brass Eye episode on Animals).


[I&#39;ve added the chart if your interested] To be fair I did read it, and a few things set of alarm bells in my head - firstly the source - a vegetarian society, which I&#39;m sure you&#39;re aware would have something of a vested interest in showing humans to be herbivore. It also had a little bit on intellectual and, more worryingly, moral evolution - morality should really not enter into it. The vegetarian society of singapore have not indicated any of their sources, especially on the claim that omnivores have no enzymes in their salavia. The fact that the omnivorous structure looked so close to the carnivorous one was also worrying to me, how do those poor omnviores digest vegetable matter if they appear not to have been set up to take it in? Do you have a more objective and scientific document?


I have to say your probably one of the least kind people I&#39;ve talked to on the subject. Lucky you, I&#39;ve been quite restrianed. I&#39;m sure the real world will teach you a lesson though - not everybody is as kind as me :lol:
You could at least remain a decent person since we&#39;re both on this site we seem to have similar interests at heart Not on this issue we don&#39;t.
so I&#39;d ask you to stop being rude please and thank you. Please and thank you? Hopw presumptious - it kind of assumes I&#39;ll stop treating you like the idiot you are just because you asked nicely.
Although seeing from your signature, you seem to enjoy identifying yourself as a horrible person, so be it. I&#39;m not a horrible person, I&#39;m the eternal sun of mankind&#33;


Also in responde to your claim about healthiness, I think you&#39;ll be fine in eating meat however things like organic local meat are much better then something like mcdonalds because of all the crap in the food and also the hormones and chemicals they add. It inevitably all goes into you. Personally I feel much healthier as a vegan, as I&#39;ve lost alot of health problems I had when I was younger. Abd if you read some of the research they have done, you&#39;ll see that even if you eat meat and live healthily there are alot of indications that unhealthy diets of meat can cause alot of problems. So I choose to stay away from it. Most people recommending vegan diets are quack nutritionists or fringe biologists. I would like you to produce some of this "research" that "they" have done, which shows conclusivly that meat is toxic to humans.


Also to Comrade J. I&#39;ll just say this without trying to start a huge discussion as alot of these discussions are becoming incredibly circular. Vegetarians and Vegans have been around millenia too just about the same amount as communal societies began to have sedentary agriculture etc. I found Comrade_J&#39;s "meat is fucking delicious" approach extremely persuasive. In fact I wnet out and got a large mixed kebab to celebrate. [/b]
I&#39;ve produced lots of evidence in previous threads so if your interested go search for them.

I dont care if you dont care what I eat. The thread is about what I eat so I am going to talk about it, okay friend?

On the chart, sure I&#39;ll give you some more objective evidence but I mean its obviously not going to be completely objective because whomever is looking to do the research is obviously opinionated and looking for evidence to back themselves up regardless which way they sway.

I&#39;ve been in the real world for years now. your still a jackass.

On the toxicity of meat, I told you again and again that organic meat is probably okay for you in small amounts but totally unnecessary. I&#39;m against the factory farming industry and the environmental/health/economic impact of that practice and its counterparts.

Here is one with some reports.. Look at the bolded writing if you don&#39;t understand, the majority of the documents.

Scientific reports on different vegetarian issues. (http://www.ecologos.org/vegan.htm)

Edit: Check this out too if you dont mind that its a pro-vegan website but a popular one at that and it has sources at the bottom of each of the articles on different things i.e. health, environment etc.

That should be enough to tell you my problems with the western diet. So unless you want more information or legitimate questions I&#39;m not going to respond to anymore insults because your not worth my time unless its for legitimate discussion.

Take care.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bretty+January 16, 2007 08:31 pm--> (bretty @ January 16, 2007 08:31 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 05:14 pm

[email protected] 16, 2007 02:02 am
Well your asking for reasons why the vegan lifestyle is appropriate, So I told you to look at my previous threads. If you feel it is irrelevant then thats your choice.
I was asking why it was appropriate for humans in general You&#39;re inconsequential - I couldn&#39;t give a fuck what you eat.


Whether you think we&#39;re wrong is also irrelevant unless you provide evidence and arguments as to why. When did I say think you&#39;re wrong? I don&#39;t think you&#39;re wrong. You have yet to produce any evidence, apart from your joke of a chart, which I&#39;ll discuss below. So far, without your producing evidence to the contrary I understand that you&#39;re wrong and, not only are you wrong you&#39;re a grotesquely ugly freak (if you don&#39;t get what that was a reference to I suggest you watch the Brass Eye episode on Animals).


[I&#39;ve added the chart if your interested] To be fair I did read it, and a few things set of alarm bells in my head - firstly the source - a vegetarian society, which I&#39;m sure you&#39;re aware would have something of a vested interest in showing humans to be herbivore. It also had a little bit on intellectual and, more worryingly, moral evolution - morality should really not enter into it. The vegetarian society of singapore have not indicated any of their sources, especially on the claim that omnivores have no enzymes in their salavia. The fact that the omnivorous structure looked so close to the carnivorous one was also worrying to me, how do those poor omnviores digest vegetable matter if they appear not to have been set up to take it in? Do you have a more objective and scientific document?


I have to say your probably one of the least kind people I&#39;ve talked to on the subject. Lucky you, I&#39;ve been quite restrianed. I&#39;m sure the real world will teach you a lesson though - not everybody is as kind as me :lol:
You could at least remain a decent person since we&#39;re both on this site we seem to have similar interests at heart Not on this issue we don&#39;t.
so I&#39;d ask you to stop being rude please and thank you. Please and thank you? Hopw presumptious - it kind of assumes I&#39;ll stop treating you like the idiot you are just because you asked nicely.
Although seeing from your signature, you seem to enjoy identifying yourself as a horrible person, so be it. I&#39;m not a horrible person, I&#39;m the eternal sun of mankind&#33;


Also in responde to your claim about healthiness, I think you&#39;ll be fine in eating meat however things like organic local meat are much better then something like mcdonalds because of all the crap in the food and also the hormones and chemicals they add. It inevitably all goes into you. Personally I feel much healthier as a vegan, as I&#39;ve lost alot of health problems I had when I was younger. Abd if you read some of the research they have done, you&#39;ll see that even if you eat meat and live healthily there are alot of indications that unhealthy diets of meat can cause alot of problems. So I choose to stay away from it. Most people recommending vegan diets are quack nutritionists or fringe biologists. I would like you to produce some of this "research" that "they" have done, which shows conclusivly that meat is toxic to humans.


Also to Comrade J. I&#39;ll just say this without trying to start a huge discussion as alot of these discussions are becoming incredibly circular. Vegetarians and Vegans have been around millenia too just about the same amount as communal societies began to have sedentary agriculture etc. I found Comrade_J&#39;s "meat is fucking delicious" approach extremely persuasive. In fact I wnet out and got a large mixed kebab to celebrate.
I&#39;ve produced lots of evidence in previous threads so if your interested go search for them.

I dont care if you dont care what I eat. The thread is about what I eat so I am going to talk about it, okay friend?

On the chart, sure I&#39;ll give you some more objective evidence but I mean its obviously not going to be completely objective because whomever is looking to do the research is obviously opinionated and looking for evidence to back themselves up regardless which way they sway.

I&#39;ve been in the real world for years now. your still a jackass.

On the toxicity of meat, I told you again and again that organic meat is probably okay for you in small amounts but totally unnecessary. I&#39;m against the factory farming industry and the environmental/health/economic impact of that practice and its counterparts.

Here is one with some reports.. Look at the bolded writing if you don&#39;t understand, the majority of the documents.

Scientific reports on different vegetarian issues. (http://www.ecologos.org/vegan.htm)

Edit: Check this out too if you dont mind that its a pro-vegan website but a popular one at that and it has sources at the bottom of each of the articles on different things i.e. health, environment etc.

That should be enough to tell you my problems with the western diet. So unless you want more information or legitimate questions I&#39;m not going to respond to anymore insults because your not worth my time unless its for legitimate discussion.

Take care. [/b]
Read the following, very carefully - ****casket.

You&#39;re quite wrong on the objectivity front, most science revolves around experimentation to prove a hypothesis, not selective reporting or direct falsification of results to fit the hypothesis. I would be just as sceptical if Marlborough released "evidence" that smoking was good like salad.

I&#39;m impressed that you&#39;ve managed to not find anyone more insulting to vegetarians and vegans, I do understand the mentality. I was one, my sister and mother are both veggie.

Where does the necessitity of a food type become relevent to our discussion? Why are you against factory farms? I really have no interest in discussing the environmental impact of eating meat, because there is a seperate fucking thread for it - where my good comrade Sentinel has patiently and with a great degree of restriant trounced the living shit out of your arguments.

Haha, why has it got the "important" bits bolded, so that idiot vegans like yourself don&#39;t overheat reading it?

I read most of those reports, I wasn&#39;t impressed. For the most part they pointed out that things in a vegan diet are beneficial to health, and guess what - people can still eat those alongside meat and remain perfectly fucking healthy. The other popular type of "report" was one like the piece entitled:
" Upregulation of lymphocyte apoptosis as a strategy for preventing and treating autoimmune disorders: a role for whole-food vegan diets, fish oil and dopamine agonists. " (Which refers to an older article declaring that a vegan diet can downregulate IGF-I, that fails to point conclusivley to any ecidence that meat eating slows the "downregulation process) show the link with prevention of specific disease, but do not asess over all health benefits or detrements, rather unprofessionally refers to &#39;western&#39; diseases as if pathogens only act in certian cultures and finally once more does not cite its reasoing as to whether or not meat acts detrementally to this.

A personal favourite in that paticular gleaming shite of a website was "Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002 May;156(5):431-7 " which not only fails to mention sample size but does mention that the adolescents were from an &#39;urban secondry school&#39;, now how many omnivorous urban adolescents could tell you the first fucking thing about diet, it&#39;s not part of the curriculum in any major way - I was quite ignorant of dietry requirments at 14.9 (the mean age of those sampled), however vegetarain children will often understand this more, eat less (especially if the school provides meals, trust me on that) or be more obsessivley observed by parents worried their child has taken on a damaging diet (which can, oftn be the case if a child or parent does not have a rudimentery (at the least) understanding of diet.). The diet was not controlled by scientests either, it was all run by &#39;self-report&#39; which is worrying in itself and there was no control group.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea, I am not put off by vegetarians and vegans that have learned to speak pseudoscience.

The firt sentence of your last paragraph was a fucking hoot and a holler. "The Western Diet", what the fuck is wrong with? Where do you live that you consider &#39;eating meat&#39; a western phenomenon - is it a world without peking duck? A world without beef rendang, lamb dansak, the vast array of seafoood available in eastern asia? It&#39;s different from my world, from my birth in Botswana, through my travels in Asia and my settling in England I have always eaten meat, depsite spending a lot of my life outside of what is considered &#39;western&#39; by unwashed hippies like you. Oh yes, I have no real patience for people who can&#39;t take an insult on the fucking internet, you need fucking micron-thin skin (not my coinage, but a fucking good one) not to be able to ignore words like "fucknut".

I hope you get hit by a train.

[bretty]

Alright first off sentinel and you havent proved anything wrong with my reasons for being vegan, I&#39;m not trying to prove it is universally acceptable for all humans to eat meat you idiot i&#39;m trying to explain the reasons why I&#39;m a vegan, not why YOU should be one. So we&#39;ve basically gotten nowhere except you&#39;ve pissed me off by insulting me for no fucking reason. I&#39;ve dealt with your type before on messageboards where you love flaming people for no reason and mask your lack of evidence to prove your points. Your all alike, trying to prove your e-penis by insulting people who you dont even know.

Now I know there is another thread for environmental effects, but I&#39;ve stated in this thread that I dont eat meat and we&#39;ve been discussing it. Now if you paid attention, the reason the other thread was started was because others and I were beginning to discuss it in this thread but it doesnt mean this one isnt allowed to have the same content, so if it makes you happy go challenge people in the other thread.

Actually the bolded parts are to show the relevancy to the topic - are you an idiot? [Thats rhetorical in case you are an idiot]

Also to add, the western diet i&#39;m referring to is the factory farmed meat industry and its counterparts, since you havent been paying attention to my reasonings. This was essentially a european creation initially. And on top of that things like mcdonalds etc. were also of western origin. So I avoid those as well.

You need to read more information on the topic, and further go to anger management. Tell your sister and mom my condolences.

This thread sucks now, I&#39;m going to stop talking to you jazzrat because your just such an asshole.

Bottom line: I&#39;m vegan because I think its a healthier way to live, and I have seen these effects on my body and in my life within weeks of switching off meat dairy and eggs. I dont want to support capitalist industries that destroy the planet such as the industrial livestock production and slaughter and I think that it is unhealthy to ingest food from factory farms based on the fact that bovine growth hormones and other chemicals etc. are put into them to make them fatter, give more milk, etc. which ultimately goes into us. There is alot of evidence to show that it effects health/the environment/economics and that is why I choose to avoid it.

Whether you agree with that bottom line position or not is not my problem and I&#39;m done arguing like two highschool kids.

The end.

[Revalation]

I eat anything that moves&#33;&#33;

[Honggweilo]

I eat meat and i am inherently not opposed to omniforism, i find veganism a is a breakoff from human nature and not ecologicaly nesserary if you count in that capitalism is the source of ecological catastrophy and animal suffering. Humane treatment of animals is kind of a paradox conserning animals are not human, and ofcourse inflict inhumane cruelty against each other. But as dominant spiecies i see it as our task to preserve the ecosystem and keep it in balance and thus prevent animal cruelty and ecological devestation, both products of capitalism and induvidualism.

I can indenify myself alot with freeganism/vegepreferism, although it tend to eat commercial meat at sometimes (on a regular bais actually), but mostly due to others (eating at/with friend/family). I also tend to evade specific kinds of meat/food due to health.

but alas, a statement by maddox which is sadly true

"for every animal you don&#39;t eat, i eat three" :rolleyes:

[Hate Is Art]

Humane treatment of animals is kind of a paradox concerning [sic] animals are not human [. . .] . But as dominant spiecies I see it as our task to preserve the ecosystem and keep it in balance and thus prevent animal cruelty and ecological devestation,

Just because animals are not human does not mean we shouldn&#39;t treat them with a bit of decency. I&#39;m sure it&#39;s going to be an &#39;agree to disagree&#39; situation but what is the basis for your argument of not treating them kindly. They after all, do have feelings, I am sure if animals could talk they would express some kind of anger towards the way they are treated and the fact that they are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment. Especially when there are other, ethical alternatives availible. For example meat substitute products, like Quorn or soya based products.

Secondly the meat industry causes a huge ammount of damage to the environment, in the felling off rainforests for grazing land, the ammount of food which is wasted to produce an animal ready for slaughter.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by bretty+--> (bretty)I dont want to support capitalist industries that destroy the planet[/b]
Then what are you doing on a computer? Don&#39;t you have power stations where you come from? Unfortunately, living an ordinary human life has side-effects we can&#39;t yet control, you&#39;re bound to cause some environmental damage unless you live in a cave.


Digital Nirvana
I am sure if animals could talk they would express some kind of anger towards the way they are treated and the fact that they are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment.

Well that&#39;s exactly the fucking point isn&#39;t it, they can&#39;t talk. I&#39;m sure if leeks could talk, they&#39;d object to being brutally ripped from the ground and boiled, but the main point is they can&#39;t talk and saying "if they could" as a reason for not eating them is simply ridiculous, as is not eating meat on that basis. Animals don&#39;t have the ability to think about the mass-slaughter of their species, nevermind actually being able to fucking TELL people they disapprove.
Also, the only reason they even get a life at all is because we eat them and use them for other purposes like dairy. I don&#39;t know a single farmer who keeps cows and pigs because he enjoys their company. At least the animals are allowed to have a life prior to slaughtered, more than they would have had were they not destined to be killed and eaten.

[Hate Is Art]

I&#39;m sure if leeks could talk, they&#39;d object to being brutally ripped from the ground and boiled

Ur, This is GCSE level biology here but Leeks don&#39;t have a nervous system therefore they can&#39;t feel anything. So they wouldn&#39;t object to being brutally ripped from the ground and boiled, would they?

Mammals and birds on the other hand do have a central nervous system in much the same way we do, so they feel pain in the exact same way we do. You think it&#39;s ok to murder these innocent creatures?


Also, the only reason they even get a life at all is because we eat them and use them for other purposes like dairy. I don&#39;t know a single farmer who keeps cows and pigs because he enjoys their company. At least the animals are allowed to have a life prior to slaughtered, more than they would have had were they not destined to be killed and eaten.

Ok, so, sorry WHAT? The only reasons animals are on this planet is because we eat them? That statement shows a huge lack of knowledge. A life prior to being slaughtered? In what way, battery farming is no life comrade.

http://www.animalfreedom.org/slideshow/images/maststall.jpg

This Looks Like A Fun Life.

http://www.animalfreedom.org/slideshow/images/mestkuikens.jpg

Roomy innit.

[Comrade J]

I&#39;m sure if leeks could talk, they&#39;d object to being brutally ripped from the ground and boiled

Ur, This is GCSE level biology here but Leeks don&#39;t have a nervous system therefore they can&#39;t feel anything. So they wouldn&#39;t object to being brutally ripped from the ground and boiled, would they?

Obviously not no, it was an example used to highlight your ridiculous statement, but then animals aren&#39;t going to care about &#39;the fact that they are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment&#39; because animals cannot comprehend this. Are you seriously trying to tell me a cow thinks "Fuck, this meat industry is a bastard&#33; They&#39;re killing all my fellow cows..."?
Of course they don&#39;t, so your statement that animals would complain about mass killings if they could talk is beyond absurd.


Mammals and birds on the other hand do have a central nervous system in much the same way we do, so they feel pain in the exact same way we do. You think it&#39;s ok to murder these innocent creatures?

Absolutely. I am an omnivorous being, so I eat meat, as it is natural for me to, thanks to the process of evolution.



Also, the only reason they even get a life at all is because we eat them and use them for other purposes like dairy. I don&#39;t know a single farmer who keeps cows and pigs because he enjoys their company. At least the animals are allowed to have a life prior to slaughtered, more than they would have had were they not destined to be killed and eaten.

Ok, so, sorry WHAT? The only reasons animals are on this planet is because we eat them? That statement shows a huge lack of knowledge. A life prior to being slaughtered? In what way, battery farming is no life comrade.

Oh sorry, I should have explained it better, had I known what an embarassingly thick **** you were. I hope this explanation helps.
The ONLY reason that we have such a large number of cattle, pigs, sheep etc at the moment is because we use them for farming. They are bred to be slaughtered. Were we not a species of meat-eaters, there obviously wouldn&#39;t be such a huge number of these animals, no right-minded person would purposely breed, keep and feed all these animals just for the fucking sake of it. Therefore, there are thousands and thousands of animals alive only because of our need for meat. They would have not even been born if there was no demand. It&#39;s common sense.


http://www.animalfreedom.org/slideshow/images/maststall.jpg

This Looks Like A Fun Life.

http://www.animalfreedom.org/slideshow/images/mestkuikens.jpg

Roomy innit.

Well would you expect &#39;animalfreedom.org&#39; to host pictures of animals in nice conditions? Of course you wouldn&#39;t, its purpose is to convince gullible-minded people that they are doing something wrong by eating meat, so of course it&#39;s very one-sided. And to be honest, I don&#39;t care. As nice as it would be for all chickens to be free-range, I&#39;m not going to lose any sleep over if it they&#39;re packed together in battery-farms, I&#39;m more concerned about helping my own species, not an inferior bird not even capable of rational thought.

[Hate Is Art]

Obviously not no

So your comparison holds no weight then does it?


[. . .] Animals aren&#39;t going to care about &#39;the fact that they are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment&#39; because animals cannot comprehend this. Are you seriously trying to tell me a cow thinks "Fuck, this meat industry is a bastard&#33; They&#39;re killing all my fellow cows..."?
Of course they don&#39;t, so your statement that animals would complain about mass killings if they could talk is beyond absurd.

I am sure (though you are yet to prove this) that you are a rational being, and therefore able to comprehend the quite simple fact that animals are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment though? It&#39;s a fact really. It is also no where near as absurd as a leek feeling pain.


I am an omnivorous being, so I eat meat, as it is natural for me to, thanks to the process of evolution.

Thanks to the purposes of evolution we no longer need to eat meat, there are perfectly suitable alternatives to eating meat now so there is in fact no need to. It is therefore for your enjoyment.


Oh sorry, I should have explained it better, had I known what an embarassingly thick **** you were. I hope this explanation helps.

I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks on you, so there is no need for you too either. Keep it clean.


Therefore, there are thousands and thousands of animals alive only because of our need for meat. They would have not even been born if there was no demand. It&#39;s common sense.

It is, but it doesn&#39;t matter at all. I would rather these animals weren&#39;t born and that they lived in a natural way then having thousands of chickens, cows, pigs et al living in an unnatural way.


As nice as it would be for all chickens to be free-range, I&#39;m not going to lose any sleep over if it they&#39;re packed together in battery-farms, I&#39;m more concerned about helping my own species, not an inferior bird not even capable of rational thought.

Children aren&#39;t capable of rational thought, though you would help them wouldn&#39;t you? I am also concerned for helping my fellow species, far more in fact then I am about helping chickens. But I also believe in animal welfare and animal rights. The two aren&#39;t mutually exclusive.

[Comrade J]

Obviously not no

So your comparison holds no weight then does it?

Well it does, but you just chose to quote only a certain bit, like I said, I was highlighting your laughable statement that "if animals could talk" they&#39;d complain about mass killings.



[. . .] Animals aren&#39;t going to care about &#39;the fact that they are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment&#39; because animals cannot comprehend this. Are you seriously trying to tell me a cow thinks "Fuck, this meat industry is a bastard&#33; They&#39;re killing all my fellow cows..."?
Of course they don&#39;t, so your statement that animals would complain about mass killings if they could talk is beyond absurd.

I am sure (though you are yet to prove this) that you are a rational being, and therefore able to comprehend the quite simple fact that animals are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment though? It&#39;s a fact really. It is also no where near as absurd as a leek feeling pain.

Indeed I am able to comprehend this, but a) I don&#39;t care. We are humans, we eat meat, animals simply do not matter to me. And b)this wasn&#39;t even your original fucking point. You said "I am sure if animals could talk they would express some kind of anger towards the way they are treated and the fact that they are being slaughtered on a mass scale for people&#39;s enjoyment".

You said animals would express anger towards the mass killing of their species, and I was arguing against that point. Simply saying that I can comprehend this is changing your point entirely, of course I can see that animals are being killed for peoples&#39; wellbeing, but your initial statement was that animals would be aware they are killed in mass numbers for peoples&#39; enjoyment, which is sheer bollocks.



I am an omnivorous being, so I eat meat, as it is natural for me to, thanks to the process of evolution.

Thanks to the purposes of evolution we no longer need to eat meat, there are perfectly suitable alternatives to eating meat now so there is in fact no need to. It is therefore for your enjoyment.
We don&#39;t need to, but so long as my enzymes digest it, and so long as my teeth chew it, I shall continue to. We dont&#39; NEED to do a lot of things, but we do because they are pleasurable and/or natural to us. Just because alternatives exist, it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean it is the best option, which I believe is the case in this scenario.



Oh sorry, I should have explained it better, had I known what an embarassingly thick **** you were. I hope this explanation helps.

I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks on you, so there is no need for you too either. Keep it clean.
Oh I wish Jazzratt was here, he loves people like you.
Ad hominem would be if I had simply said "you are a twat," or something along those lines and totally avoided the issue at hand, but I have not committed the ad hominem falacy as I have indeed addressed the argument. And to be honest, you said the most ridiculous thing I&#39;ve ever seen out of Opposing Ideologies, I&#39;m not apologising.



Therefore, there are thousands and thousands of animals alive only because of our need for meat. They would have not even been born if there was no demand. It&#39;s common sense.

It is, but it doesn&#39;t matter at all. I would rather these animals weren&#39;t born and that they lived in a natural way then having thousands of chickens, cows, pigs et al living in an unnatural way.
Well your opinion is all well and good, but it&#39;s irrelevant to this point. The animals are here now, we have no choice but to slaughter them and give people what they demand (meat). We could not simply ban meat and leave all the animals as they are, nobody would keep cattle, pigs etc. for the fun of it.
Furthermore, there is a huge demand for meat, and whether or not a few people boycott it will make very little difference at all.



As nice as it would be for all chickens to be free-range, I&#39;m not going to lose any sleep over if it they&#39;re packed together in battery-farms, I&#39;m more concerned about helping my own species, not an inferior bird not even capable of rational thought.

Children aren&#39;t capable of rational thought, though you would help them wouldn&#39;t you? I am also concerned for helping my fellow species, far more in fact then I am about helping chickens. But I also believe in animal welfare and animal rights. The two aren&#39;t mutually exclusive.
Yes, because children are part of my own species. Also, I never said that chickens should not be cared for, I just said it doesn&#39;t particularly concern me if they are not perfectly treated, there are bigger issues to think about and deal with.
And you say you care for humans more than chickens? Then that means that you must see humans as superior to chickens, as do I (and most other people in the world) which is why I believe I am able to eat them.

[Fawkes]

I have to say, Digital Nirvana and Comrade J both have the stupidest member titles I&#39;ve ever seen.

Digital Nirvana: Though I am a vegetarian and I agree with a lot of what you&#39;re saying, are you aware that hundreds of thousands of acres of rainforest are chopped down for SOY farms in the Amazon?

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:46 pm
I have to say, Digital Nirvana and Comrade J both have the stupidest member titles I&#39;ve ever seen.
:lol: I only changed it to &#39;Eat Meat&#39; because of his/her member title, and I can never think of anything worth having.

[bretty]

Although I could be wrong, I&#39;ll mention something on the soy farms in the rainforest. Yes it is a problem, but one reason why there are so many of them made is to feed the livestock farms adjacent to them. Just food for thought.

[Fawkes]

^^ To an extent that is true, but much of it still is used to feed humans. And Comrade J, I had assumed that.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:11 am
Alright first off sentinel and you havent proved anything wrong with my reasons for being vegan, I&#39;m not trying to prove it is universally acceptable for all humans to eat meat you idiot i&#39;m trying to explain the reasons why I&#39;m a vegan, not why YOU should be one.
So not only will you not admit defeat, you have the balls to accuse me of being the idiot and finally you do not have the courage of your conviction as far as veganism is concerned, otherwise you&#39;d have no problem trying to convince me not to eat meat.


So we&#39;ve basically gotten nowhere except you&#39;ve pissed me off by insulting me for no fucking reason. Actually there was a reason, your palpable stupidity.
I&#39;ve dealt with your type before on messageboards where you love flaming people for no reason and mask your lack of evidence to prove your points. I flame alongside my evidence, not instead of it. Mouthbreather.
Your all alike, trying to prove your e-penis by insulting people who you dont even know. Yes, my primary concern is my e-penis :rolleyes:


Now I know there is another thread for environmental effects, but I&#39;ve stated in this thread that I dont eat meat and we&#39;ve been discussing it. Now if you paid attention, the reason the other thread was started was because others and I were beginning to discuss it in this thread but it doesnt mean this one isnt allowed to have the same content, so if it makes you happy go challenge people in the other thread. Topics are split because they aren&#39;t dealing directly with the topic at hand, I did not want to veer off topic, especially to simply repeat arguments that have already been made.


Actually the bolded parts are to show the relevancy to the topic - are you an idiot? [Thats rhetorical in case you are an idiot] Fascinating, as the bolded parts all seemed to simply be declarations of how fantastic veganism was whilst the non-bolded bits contained the actual science. All in all though, it was still an unimpressive document.


Also to add, the western diet i&#39;m referring to is the factory farmed meat industry and its counterparts, since you havent been paying attention to my reasonings. This was essentially a european creation initially. And on top of that things like mcdonalds etc. were also of western origin. So I avoid those as well. People like you really do piss me off, you talk about the west, especially europe and america as if they&#39;re some great evil, the evidence for it is often that they have found more effeciant ways of producing things. Trust me, the east is no better or worse than the west.


You need to read more information on the topic, and further go to anger management. A) I read your argument. It sucked. B) This isn&#39;t me angry, feel free to look through my other posts to see what angry looks like.
Tell your sister and mom my condolences. I thought you&#39;d support them in their vegetarianism.


This thread sucks now, I&#39;m going to stop talking to you jazzrat because your just such an asshole. You got nothing, ey?


Bottom line: I&#39;m vegan because I think its a healthier way to live, and I have seen these effects on my body and in my life within weeks of switching off meat dairy and eggs. Maybe it is, although I didn&#39;t notice myself get any worse when I stopped being veggie.
I dont want to support capitalist industries that destroy the planet How very non-matierilst. I&#39;m afraid it is a condition of the society you live in that all your actions support capitalists.
such as the industrial livestock production and slaughter and I think that it is unhealthy to ingest food from factory farms based on the fact that bovine growth hormones and other chemicals etc. are put into them to make them fatter, give more milk, etc. which ultimately goes into us. There is alot of evidence to show that it effects health/the environment/economics and that is why I choose to avoid it. I&#39;m highly sceptical of all research on the subject presented to me thus far.But if you want to believe it it&#39;s no skin off my perfectly formed nose.


Whether you agree with that bottom line position or not is not my problem and I&#39;m done arguing like two highschool kids. And yet another argument where the loser storms off in a huff because I wasn&#39;t ultra-polite to them.

Fin.

[Fawkes]

I dont want to support capitalist industries that destroy the planet
You do realize that nearly all soy producing companies are both destructive to the environment and capitalist, right?

[bretty]

First to Fawkes: Yes I realize that, regardless as I stated above a lot of the production goes to feed the livestock.

Now to Jazzratt: You haven&#39;t convinced me of your views either. Give me some shred of evidence to support your reasoning, then I&#39;ll take you seriously. Otherwise yes, your e-penis IS your main concern.

I never said the west was evil. Your distorting what I said. I said I avoid the average western diet, i.e. fast food, meat, hormone ridden and processed foods. You&#39;ll find alot of this in other eastern countries but not to the same extent and most of it is north american origin.

What evidence have you presented to me jazzratt? just list it so I can see what you have brought to the table in this discussion.

[Fawkes]

He has presented the very well-known evidence that humans are naturally omnivores, thus it is natural for us to eat meat.

[bretty]

I&#39;m human and I don&#39;t eat meat, and I am incredibly healthy. Just because we can eat something doesn&#39;t mean we have to. So what is natural then?

[Hate Is Art]

Well it does, but you just chose to quote only a certain bit, like I said, I was highlighting your laughable statement that "if animals could talk" they&#39;d complain about mass killings.

So you&#39;re justification is that because they can&#39;t comprehend their murder, it makes it OK to murder them?


Oh I wish Jazzratt was here, he loves people like you.

Anarchists? Vegetarians?


And to be honest, you said the most ridiculous thing I&#39;ve ever seen out of Opposing Ideologies, I&#39;m not apologising.

I&#39;m sure we both know that that isn&#39;t true. Because in fact this is.


The animals are here now, we have no choice but to slaughter them

bosh.


And you say you care for humans more than chickens? Then that means that you must see humans as superior to chickens, as do I (and most other people in the world) which is why I believe I am able to eat them.

I also think adults are superior to children, I don&#39;t eat them. Superiority does not grant us the right to abuse.


You do realize that nearly all soy producing companies are both destructive to the environment and capitalist, right?

I do, and eat very little soy based products, most of them taste like crap anyway. I take vitamin pills for protein.

[Lord Testicles]

I don&#39;t eat meat, I do eat eggs and dairy products. The only reason I don&#39;t eat meat is because I was brought up that way, I have no problem with people eating meat. I think if you think it tastes good, eat it&#33; (unless you think that human flesh tastes good :unsure: )

[Louis Pio]

I eat meat, in fact im eating meat right now.
One thing is to talk about the wastage with meat production. That&#39;s obviously a vital question.
But when the semi-religious arguments start coming in I stop listening, as does most people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:39 am
Now to Jazzratt:
I thought you weren&#39;t talking to me. :lol:


You haven&#39;t convinced me of your views either. Give me some shred of evidence to support your reasoning, then I&#39;ll take you seriously. I don&#39;t need to, your making the claim that requires evidence - it is after all running contrary to the nature of humans as omnivourous creatures.
Otherwise yes, your e-penis IS your main concern. I really don&#39;t think my e-penis will get any bigger by tearing down your arguments, you are a simpleton.


I never said the west was evil. Your distorting what I said. I said I avoid the average western diet, i.e. fast food, meat, hormone ridden and processed foods. You&#39;ll find alot of this in other eastern countries but not to the same extent and most of it is north american origin. Fair enough.


What evidence have you presented to me jazzratt? just list it so I can see what you have brought to the table in this discussion. I&#39;ve presented counter-arguments. You were the one who started making the argument, there is no burden on me to present any arguments whatsover.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 18, 2007 04:34 pm

Oh I wish Jazzratt was here, he loves people like you.

Anarchists? Vegetarians?

I think he meant "idiots that abuse the term &#39;ad hominem&#39; when someone insults them".

[Comrade J]

Well it does, but you just chose to quote only a certain bit, like I said, I was highlighting your laughable statement that "if animals could talk" they&#39;d complain about mass killings.

So you&#39;re justification is that because they can&#39;t comprehend their murder, it makes it OK to murder them?

Ok, third time I explain this, it&#39;s like talking to a fucking block of granite. As I have said before, in this case, I was arguing against your stupidly absurd argument that animals would complain about mass killings if they could talk. Clearly this is false, animals cannot comprehend the fact they are killed on a large scale, for the benefit of humanity.
And I never said that the SOLE reason for killing animals is because they don&#39;t know about it, but I do think it&#39;s a mighty fucking fine contribution to the "why we can kill and eat animals" argument, yes.



Oh I wish Jazzratt was here, he loves people like you.

Anarchists? Vegetarians?


As Jazzratt has pointed out already, &#39;idiots that abuse the term &#39;ad hominem&#39; when someone insults them.&#39; However, he quite graciously used the term &#39;idiots&#39; - I personally would have considered that somewhat mild for an imbecile such as yourself and would have perhaps considered using a different term.




And to be honest, you said the most ridiculous thing I&#39;ve ever seen out of Opposing Ideologies, I&#39;m not apologising.

I&#39;m sure we both know that that isn&#39;t true. Because in fact this is.


The animals are here now, we have no choice but to slaughter them

bosh.

Sorry, at what point did you become the judge of what I consider to be an outstandingly ridiculous thing to say?
And although your fantastic and perfectly delivered argument of the word &#39;bosh&#39; almost convinced me you were right (certainly your best attempt at a convincing argument thus far), I surprisingly still maintain my original stance on this.
We have millions of farm animals, if the world suddenly decided we were going to give up the natural act of eating meat, the animals would have nobody to feed and shelter them, and they would undoubtedly be shoved aside in huge groups to make room for other industries (presumably agriculture, now we&#39;ll all be needing to eat vegetables), where they would have to compete for resources, causing them to die in vast numbers.



And you say you care for humans more than chickens? Then that means that you must see humans as superior to chickens, as do I (and most other people in the world) which is why I believe I am able to eat them.

I also think adults are superior to children, I don&#39;t eat them. Superiority does not grant us the right to abuse.

No, but children are the same species, you don&#39;t see yourself as a superior species to a child, so you do not excercise your right as a superior being in the same way you might with another animal. The degree of superiority is of course much larger when you compare yourself with an animal, unless of course you think the life of a human child and the life of a chicken are equally valuable.

For example, you see yourself as superior to both an infant human and a fish, yet you would not attack somebody for boiling a fish as you respect that a fish is not equal to a child, despite admitting you are in fact superior to both. If however somebody was boiling a child, you would probably have more to say about it...

[redflagfires]

yep, I eat a few types of meat.
I could live with out though.

[SUPERninjapirate]

I couldn&#39;t live without my meat.

[Hate Is Art]

Well technically, you could.

[Question everything]

I don&#39;t eat meat, this is a personnal thing and I have nothing against people who do eat meat.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:27 am
I couldn&#39;t live without my meat.
I concur with DN (and thus feel dirty), unless you have some fucking weird medical condition.

This does not mean that you cannot live with meat, just be honest about it and avoid hyperbole.

I hope you enjoy a good omnivourous lifestyle though.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:25 pm

I dont want to support capitalist industries that destroy the planet
You do realize that nearly all soy producing companies are both destructive to the environment and capitalist, right?
Not as much waste and pollution as cow farming.

Plus, soy isn&#39;t good food.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:56 am
He has presented the very well-known evidence that humans are naturally omnivores, thus it is natural for us to eat meat.
False, humans are naturally herbivores. Our invention of tools, fire and cookery allows us to be omnivores.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colorlessman+February 02, 2007 03:14 am--> (colorlessman @ February 02, 2007 03:14 am)
[email protected] 18, 2007 12:56 am
He has presented the very well-known evidence that humans are naturally omnivores, thus it is natural for us to eat meat.
False, humans are naturally herbivores. Our invention of tools, fire and cookery allows us to be omnivores. [/b]
Wrong, you stupid **** - there are many times of meat people can eat raw - most fish for example. It&#39;s only really pork and chicken that give us big problems. I know a lot of raw meat enthusiasts and they&#39;re healthier than me.

Our inventions made it easier to eat meat.

[Kia]

I&#39;m a vegetarian but have nothing against meat eaters...frankly i like a good steak..i just dont support the meat industry health standards or how it treats its workers in america so I boycott their products.

[Hate Is Art]

False, humans are naturally herbivores. Our invention of tools, fire and cookery allows us to be omnivores

Surely it&#39;s the other way round?

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by colorlessman+February 01, 2007 10:02 pm--> (colorlessman @ February 01, 2007 10:02 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 11:25 pm

I dont want to support capitalist industries that destroy the planet
You do realize that nearly all soy producing companies are both destructive to the environment and capitalist, right?
Not as much waste and pollution as cow farming.

Plus, soy isn&#39;t good food. [/b]
On average, 10,000 sq. miles of the South American rainforests are cut down each year, mostly for growing of soy (source (http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=66935-mcdonalds-cargill-soy)).

[Hate Is Art]

The soy is then shipped to Europe, where it is fed to animals that are then turned into fast food products like chicken nuggets. The pressure group claims that last year more than 25,000 sq kilometres (10,000 sq miles) of Amazon forest were felled, largely for soy farming. From the article.

As I&#39;ve said before, a lot of vegetarians don&#39;t eat soya based products.

[Fawkes]

But the majority of them do. And though most of that soy is used for livestock, the soy that humans eat also comes from the same place.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 02, 2007 08:05 am--> (Jazzratt @ February 02, 2007 08:05 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:14 am

[email protected] 18, 2007 12:56 am
He has presented the very well-known evidence that humans are naturally omnivores, thus it is natural for us to eat meat.
False, humans are naturally herbivores. Our invention of tools, fire and cookery allows us to be omnivores.
Wrong, you stupid **** - there are many times of meat people can eat raw - most fish for example. It&#39;s only really pork and chicken that give us big problems. I know a lot of raw meat enthusiasts and they&#39;re healthier than me.

Our inventions made it easier to eat meat. [/b]
You need a tool to catch fish.

Also, raw meat is dead food and full of harmful bacteria.

[Fawkes]

Saying that humans are herbivores is a ludicrous statement to make. Our bodies are made so we can eat meat. Fire had nothing to do with us eating meat and even our earliest ancestor, australopithecus, was an omnivore. There was no time in the history of humans that homo sapiens were strictly herbivores.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:31 pm
1. Our bodies are made so we can eat meat.

2. There was no time in the history of humans that homo sapiens were strictly herbivores.
Who said and what proof do you have to backup your statements?

[Fawkes]

1. Read any biology book. It&#39;s not my duty to teach you things that you should&#39;ve learned in 2nd grade science class.

2.
Paleoanthropologist Julia Lee-Thorp of the University of Cape Town in South Africa and graduate student Matt Sponheimer of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, examined carbon isotopes in the tooth enamel of Australopithecus africanus, a small-brained hominid that walked upright but was probably also at home in the trees. Researchers thought that this species subsisted on forest fruits and leaves, but the isotopic clues show that it ate a varied diet, including either grassland plants or animals that themselves fed on grasses.
Source (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/did_early_african_hominids_eat_m.htm)

Edit: Sorry, I just realized that for #2 I answered the wrong question. I&#39;ll keep my original answer there but give a new answer for the real question. To survive out in the wilderness, one needs about 9,000 calories a day. There is no way that a human could get 9,000 calories every single day just by gathering vegetables/fruits, it&#39;s just not possible. And we know that there was no time between when the agricultural revolution occured and now that homo sapiens sapiens were strictly herbivores.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colorlessman+February 02, 2007 07:23 pm--> (colorlessman @ February 02, 2007 07:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:05 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 03:14 am

[email protected] 18, 2007 12:56 am
He has presented the very well-known evidence that humans are naturally omnivores, thus it is natural for us to eat meat.
False, humans are naturally herbivores. Our invention of tools, fire and cookery allows us to be omnivores.
Wrong, you stupid **** - there are many times of meat people can eat raw - most fish for example. It&#39;s only really pork and chicken that give us big problems. I know a lot of raw meat enthusiasts and they&#39;re healthier than me.

Our inventions made it easier to eat meat.
You need a tool to catch fish. [/b]
...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


Also, raw meat is dead food and full of harmful bacteria. "Dead food" as opposed to all the living things we eat? What you have just come out with is what is usually reffered to in thinking circles as a meaningless statement. (By thinking circles I don&#39;t mean intellectuals, I mean any being capable of higher brain function and an understanding of language.). Most food contains bacteria, both helpful and harmful - our immune systems generally do away with the latter. There is nothing about raw meat that is intrinsically toxic, aside from chicken/pig blood.

Look you have the fucking vegetarians/vegans arguing against your position too, surley this has shown you it holds less weight than an anorxia convention.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 07:52 pm
1. Read any biology book. It&#39;s not my duty to teach you things that you should&#39;ve learned in 2nd grade science class.

2.
Paleoanthropologist Julia Lee-Thorp of the University of Cape Town in South Africa and graduate student Matt Sponheimer of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, examined carbon isotopes in the tooth enamel of Australopithecus africanus, a small-brained hominid that walked upright but was probably also at home in the trees. Researchers thought that this species subsisted on forest fruits and leaves, but the isotopic clues show that it ate a varied diet, including either grassland plants or animals that themselves fed on grasses.
Source (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/did_early_african_hominids_eat_m.htm)

Edit: Sorry, I just realized that for #2 I answered the wrong question. I&#39;ll keep my original answer there but give a new answer for the real question. To survive out in the wilderness, one needs about 9,000 calories a day. There is no way that a human could get 9,000 calories every single day just by gathering vegetables/fruits, it&#39;s just not possible. And we know that there was no time between when the agricultural revolution occured and now that homo sapiens sapiens were strictly herbivores.
1. They taught you wrong.

2. We are more herbivores than Omnivores. Just because we can process animal matter, it does not mean it is good for us or we are supposed to eat it.





http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/a...r-herbivores-2/ (http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/09/are-humans-carnivores-or-herbivores-2/)

Are human beings anatomically more similar to natural carnivores or to natural herbivores? Let’s find out….

Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.

Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.

But aren’t humans anatomically suited to be omnivores?

Nope. We don’t anatomically match up with omnivorous animals anymore than we do with carnivorous ones. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores. For a more detailed summary table that compares the properties of carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores side by side, see this page:

Comparative Anatomy & Taxonomy
http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Gesundheit/taxonomy.html


The link above also debunks the opportunistic feeder theory, which states that because humans can eat like omnivores, that we must therefore be omnivores. And this is of course false because mere behavior doesn’t indicate suitability. There are plenty of things we can do as a species that would threaten our survival if we all considered them suitable default behavior, such as shooting each other, lobbing hand grenades, or sending spam.

[Fawkes]

1. They taught you wrong.
Oh, I&#39;m sorry, are you telling me that the authors of every science textbook were wrong?

Also, though the information you posted is interesting, yes, you failed to refute my arguments.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:52 pm

...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


We are capable of eating a lot of things, some people eat shit. Does it mean shit is healthy food? NO.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:24 pm

1. They taught you wrong.
Oh, I&#39;m sorry, are you telling me that the authors of every science textbook were wrong?


Every science book, has to get it is funds from somewhere to be written. And we all know the meat industry is full of money.

What arguments?

[Fawkes]

How do you explain the fact that many people actually get sick and unhealthy when they stop eating meat? Honestly, like Jazzratt said, I&#39;m a vegetarian and I&#39;m arguing with you, doesn&#39;t that say something about your argument?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colorlessman+February 02, 2007 11:26 pm--> (colorlessman @ February 02, 2007 11:26 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 08:52 pm

...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


We are capable of eating a lot of things, some people eat shit. Does it mean shit is healthy food? NO. [/b]
Are you being this annoying on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? What I of course implied, as anyone that is mentally superior to, say, a plank of wood, would tell you is that you can eat it without ill effect, becuase it isn&#39;t fucking toxic.

Will you please fuck off?

[Fawkes]

Every science book, has to get it is funds from somewhere to be written. And we all know the meat industry is full of money.
Just when you thought there wasn&#39;t a conspiracy theory for everything....


What arguments?


2.


Paleoanthropologist Julia Lee-Thorp of the University of Cape Town in South Africa and graduate student Matt Sponheimer of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, examined carbon isotopes in the tooth enamel of Australopithecus africanus, a small-brained hominid that walked upright but was probably also at home in the trees. Researchers thought that this species subsisted on forest fruits and leaves, but the isotopic clues show that it ate a varied diet, including either grassland plants or animals that themselves fed on grasses.


Source

Edit: Sorry, I just realized that for #2 I answered the wrong question. I&#39;ll keep my original answer there but give a new answer for the real question. To survive out in the wilderness, one needs about 9,000 calories a day. There is no way that a human could get 9,000 calories every single day just by gathering vegetables/fruits, it&#39;s just not possible. And we know that there was no time between when the agricultural revolution occured and now that homo sapiens sapiens were strictly herbivores.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:30 pm
Every science book, has to get it is funds from somewhere to be written. And we all know the meat industry is full of money.
Oh for fuck&#39;s sake. :lol: What is wrong with you? Are you suggesting that every science textbook in every nation and in fact most biologists are secretly in the pocket of the meat industry? Are you aware of how fucking ridicioulous you&#39;re sounding? :lol:

You&#39;re a joke, your arguments are a rich wealth of humourous absurdities and quite frankly I&#39;m surprised Fawkes hasn&#39;t recommended you either recieve an eductaion or drag whatever excuse you have for a brain out of your fucking eyeholes.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:31 pm
How do you explain the fact that many people actually get sick and unhealthy when they stop eating meat? Honestly, like Jazzratt said, I&#39;m a vegetarian and I&#39;m arguing with you, doesn&#39;t that say something about your argument?
huh? Most people actually get healthier once they stop eating meat. First once they stop they will feel sick but this is not actual sickness. This is called detoxification and the body adapting. Most people who don&#39;t know this process will quit veganism because they think it is their withdrawal from meat.

What do you get from meat anyways?

Protein, and if you know anything about food science. Animal protein is harder for the body to digest and assimliate than plant protein. Animal protein is inferior to plant protein.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 02, 2007 11:33 pm--> (Jazzratt @ February 02, 2007 11:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:26 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 08:52 pm

...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


We are capable of eating a lot of things, some people eat shit. Does it mean shit is healthy food? NO.
Are you being this annoying on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? What I of course implied, as anyone that is mentally superior to, say, a plank of wood, would tell you is that you can eat it without ill effect, becuase it isn&#39;t fucking toxic.

Will you please fuck off? [/b]
Nah, I am just responding in like manner.

[Fawkes]

Your body doesn&#39;t detox meat, some people&#39;s bodies just need it more than others. I didn&#39;t detox at all when I stopped eating meat. Plant and meat proteins are both important and compliment each other.

[colorlessman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:34 pm

one needs about 9,000 calories a day. There is no way that a human could get 9,000 calories every single day just by gathering vegetables/fruits, it&#39;s just not possible.
lol, it is more like 2000 calories a day.

[Fawkes]

Not in the wilderness it&#39;s not. Believe me, one of my hobbies is reading wilderness survival manuals.

Edit: By the way, if you want a source for that, I found it in Camping and Wilderness Survival by Paul Tawrell.

[apathy maybe]

I would just like to complain about one of the poll options. The second one "Yes, but only if it&#39;s free (freeganism)" should read, "Yes, but only if it doesn&#39;t contribute to the production of more meat (freeganism)". Freeganism is not about things being &#39;free&#39; or costless for the consumer. Freeganism is about things being &#39;free&#39; for the planet. It is about reducing demand, reducing waste and so on.

So yes, I eat meat. But only if it is not going to contribute demand and thus to the production of more animal corpses.

Otherwise I&#39;m vegetarian.

[Jude]

I used to, but ever since my dad shot a deer and forced me to cut its head off with a hacksaw, I won&#39;t touch venison; even the smell of it cooking makes me gag. I also rarely touch beef or poultry, but love bacon, pork, and salami.

[Fawkes]

I used to, but ever since my dad shot a deer and forced me to cut its head off with a hacksaw
He forced you to?

[MissLeftistRevolutionary]

I am a vegetarian.

[Hate Is Art]

Colorlessguy, please. This getting very fucking ridiculous, you need some kind of disclaimer so other, normal vegetarians, aren&#39;t associated with you.


I used to, but ever since my dad shot a deer and forced me to cut its head off with a hacksaw,

I love the utter blahze way you stated that.

[Jude]

He didn&#39;t hold his gun to my head, but he made it seem like I had to do it. A ten year old kid can easily be manipulated... I think I was ten... maybe eleven... but it was still a lot of blood for a kid.

[Hate Is Art]

You cut a deers head off when you where ten? WTF&#33;?

[dannthraxxx]

No, I dont eat meat.


It&#39;s sad that most vegans/vegetarian are completely retarded in the matter of why they&#39;re actually vegan/vegetarian. Basically, for me, its a moral issue. I&#39;ve spent countless restless nights trying to argue "logically" why meat is a bad thing. However, in the end, you have to agree to disagree. In my humble opinion you can prove neither the value of eating meat, nor the value of being vegan/vegetarian, other than moral standards.

Yes meat may taste good, but vegetarian food tastes good as well. Meat can be healthy if eaten in moderation, but vegetarian food is oftentimes healthier. Eating meat is natural, yes, but eating meat produced in a factory farm is unnatural. Animals exist to be eaten, maybe, that does happen in nature, however in nature there arent any animals imprisoning other animals and injecting them with all sorts of anti-biotics/growth hormones.

The argument that "people can choose what they want to eat and animals cannot" is one that always gets to me, thats seriously not a valuable argument in any light. That simply makes humyns more responsible, it doesnt make it a valid reason to not eat meat.

Animals may indeed suffer when butchered, however, when they d ie a natural death caused by disease or being taken as prey, it is just as painful.


I hate that people try to shove their moral beliefs down others throats. It&#39;s ridiculous and will not help your cause in any sense. It will make you look foolish. If you want to be vegan/vegetarian, good, lead by example and stop forcing ideologies on others.

[Jude]

Its part of the preparation before butchering. It was hanging by its hind legs from a tree. Don&#39;t think I&#39;m some kind of sadist or anything...

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 07:22 pm
No, I dont eat meat.


It&#39;s sad that most vegans/vegetarian are completely retarded in the matter of why they&#39;re actually vegan/vegetarian. Basically, for me, its a moral issue. I&#39;ve spent countless restless nights trying to argue "logically" why meat is a bad thing. However, in the end, you have to agree to disagree. In my humble opinion you can prove neither the value of eating meat, nor the value of being vegan/vegetarian, other than moral standards.

Yes meat may taste good, but vegetarian food tastes good as well. Meat can be healthy if eaten in moderation, but vegetarian food is oftentimes healthier. Eating meat is natural, yes, but eating meat produced in a factory farm is unnatural. Animals exist to be eaten, maybe, that does happen in nature, however in nature there arent any animals imprisoning other animals and injecting them with all sorts of anti-biotics/growth hormones.

The argument that "people can choose what they want to eat and animals cannot" is one that always gets to me, thats seriously not a valuable argument in any light. That simply makes humyns more responsible, it doesnt make it a valid reason to not eat meat.

Animals may indeed suffer when butchered, however, when they d ie a natural death caused by disease or being taken as prey, it is just as painful.


I hate that people try to shove their moral beliefs down others throats. It&#39;s ridiculous and will not help your cause in any sense. It will make you look foolish. If you want to be vegan/vegetarian, good, lead by example and stop forcing ideologies on others.
QFT, especially the last part.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:22 am
No, I dont eat meat.


It&#39;s sad that most vegans/vegetarian are completely retarded in the matter of why they&#39;re actually vegan/vegetarian. Basically, for me, its a moral issue. I&#39;ve spent countless restless nights trying to argue "logically" why meat is a bad thing. However, in the end, you have to agree to disagree. In my humble opinion you can prove neither the value of eating meat, nor the value of being vegan/vegetarian, other than moral standards.

Yes meat may taste good, but vegetarian food tastes good as well. Meat can be healthy if eaten in moderation, but vegetarian food is oftentimes healthier. Eating meat is natural, yes, but eating meat produced in a factory farm is unnatural. Animals exist to be eaten, maybe, that does happen in nature, however in nature there arent any animals imprisoning other animals and injecting them with all sorts of anti-biotics/growth hormones.

The argument that "people can choose what they want to eat and animals cannot" is one that always gets to me, thats seriously not a valuable argument in any light. That simply makes humyns more responsible, it doesnt make it a valid reason to not eat meat.

Animals may indeed suffer when butchered, however, when they d ie a natural death caused by disease or being taken as prey, it is just as painful.


I hate that people try to shove their moral beliefs down others throats. It&#39;s ridiculous and will not help your cause in any sense. It will make you look foolish. If you want to be vegan/vegetarian, good, lead by example and stop forcing ideologies on others.
I agree with the last part too. Leading by example is very important.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 02, 2007 11:33 pm--> (Jazzratt @ February 02, 2007 11:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:26 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 08:52 pm

...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


We are capable of eating a lot of things, some people eat shit. Does it mean shit is healthy food? NO.
Are you being this annoying on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? What I of course implied, as anyone that is mentally superior to, say, a plank of wood, would tell you is that you can eat it without ill effect, becuase it isn&#39;t fucking toxic.

Will you please fuck off? [/b]
I would agree that it isn&#39;t toxic but it can be harmful in large quantities and also with all the shit they throw into livestock feed one can&#39;t help but pay attention to all the research linking ill effects to the stuff in the food they eat.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by bretty+February 05, 2007 04:00 am--> (bretty @ February 05, 2007 04:00 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:26 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 08:52 pm

...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


We are capable of eating a lot of things, some people eat shit. Does it mean shit is healthy food? NO.
Are you being this annoying on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? What I of course implied, as anyone that is mentally superior to, say, a plank of wood, would tell you is that you can eat it without ill effect, becuase it isn&#39;t fucking toxic.

Will you please fuck off?
I would agree that it isn&#39;t toxic but it can be harmful in large quantities and also with all the shit they throw into livestock feed one can&#39;t help but pay attention to all the research linking ill effects to the stuff in the food they eat. [/b]
you know there is this thing that is also really dangerous when consumed in large quantity&#39;s.

its called water and poeple have actually died after drinking way too much of it.

anyway what im trying to say is that the "harmfull in large quantity&#39;s" argument has a very big no shit sherlock &#33;&#33; factor :rolleyes:

[Guerrilla22]

Yeah I eat meat, humans have always eaten meat, its natural.

[Hate Is Art]

you know there is this thing that is also really dangerous when consumed in large quantity&#39;s.

its called water and poeple have actually died after drinking way too much of it.

anyway what im trying to say is that the "harmfull in large quantity&#39;s" argument has a very big no shit sherlock &#33;&#33; factor

I think he was referring to the stuff that we put into meat to make it more economically viable, anti-biotics, pumping it full of water, using parts of dead animals etc. Which leads to. . .


Yeah I eat meat, humans have always eaten meat, its natural.

But the thing is, the way we consume meat now, is not.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I eat meat and so no "ethical" reason not to.

As for health and stuff, here in Pakistan most of the meat is produced organically. No genetically-modified monsters or anything.

You can go to a butcher and select the animal you want to eat, or you could just buy freshly-butchered meat. It&#39;s not such a problem.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bretty+February 05, 2007 04:00 am--> (bretty @ February 05, 2007 04:00 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:26 pm

[email protected] 02, 2007 08:52 pm

...and, we are still capable of eating the damn things.


We are capable of eating a lot of things, some people eat shit. Does it mean shit is healthy food? NO.
Are you being this annoying on purpose or are you genuinely stupid? What I of course implied, as anyone that is mentally superior to, say, a plank of wood, would tell you is that you can eat it without ill effect, becuase it isn&#39;t fucking toxic.

Will you please fuck off?
I would agree that it isn&#39;t toxic but it can be harmful in large quantities [/b]
So are a lot of things as piet pointed out.


and also with all the shit they throw into livestock feed one can&#39;t help but pay attention to all the research linking ill effects to the stuff in the food they eat. This doesn&#39;t translate into not eating meat, just being careful about where it is sourced. If you care about that kind of thing, but most of what I do has a detrimental effect on my health - part of living is, after all, the spiral into death - why not enjoy it? YOu&#39;ll only grow old and crippled.

[bretty]

Well Digital Nirvana got my point. I meant to say there is a healthy limit to things, and meat is something that you have to be careful about ESPECIALLY with the crap thats in it from industrial livestock rearing methods. For those who do eat meat, I&#39;d strongly recommend local farms and organic alternatives.

And Piet your definitely exaggerating my point. Drinking that much water is hard to do, you need to basically force it down. My point was that these days alot of people eat really unhealthy diets and don&#39;t balance their intake for nutrition. And alot of older men are having problems now with cholesterol, gout, heart disease etc. and it has been linked to things like eating way too much meat and rich foods like cheese.

I&#39;m not going to argue that this stuff is bad for you in small amounts because it isn&#39;t for alot of people who are balanced, but there is a correlation obviously between overconsumption of rich and fatty foods and bad health in life.

And to Jazzratt: I do enjoy life, and not everyone grows crippled :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 07:45 pm
And to Jazzratt: I do enjoy life, and not everyone grows crippled :lol:
THe point I was making was that boredom is a high price for longevity. If you don&#39;t find boredom in your lifestyle then fine, you will live longer than me.

Eventually the mind cripples though, I don&#39;t want that to happen to me as I see what crippled minds can produce every day on this board.

[Guerrilla22]

I only eat Kosher meat.

[Fawkes]

Why is that?

[Guerrilla22]

The meat is of much better quality, because under the Kosher guidelines the animal cannot be mass slaughtered and the animal has to be inspected for diseases before and after its slaughtered. If you buy meat from an amish market its completely organic also.

[Fawkes]

But also, the methods used for slaughtering Kosher meat are far more brutal than normal.

[Guerrilla22]

All methods of slaughtering animals are pretty brutal.

[Fawkes]

Yeah I know that, it&#39;s just that kosher ones are even more so.

[welshred]

I have no problems with eating meat although I do try to eat as little as possible, mainly due to the fact of the of the environmental problems associated with the production of meat.

[Hate Is Art]

THe point I was making was that boredom is a high price for longevity. If you don&#39;t find boredom in your lifestyle then fine, you will live longer than me.

Eventually the mind cripples though, I don&#39;t want that to happen to me as I see what crippled minds can produce every day on this board.

I don&#39;t understand what&#39;s boring about not eating meat?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Hate Is [email protected] 07, 2007 04:50 pm

THe point I was making was that boredom is a high price for longevity. If you don&#39;t find boredom in your lifestyle then fine, you will live longer than me.

Eventually the mind cripples though, I don&#39;t want that to happen to me as I see what crippled minds can produce every day on this board.

I don&#39;t understand what&#39;s boring about not eating meat?
It&#39;s more the limting your food choices for arbitary reasons I find a waste of time.

[The Anarchist Prince]

*Sigh* one of my best friends is partly veggie-fied, as I teasingly jest her. She somehow believes eating meat, and animal cruelty are the exact same. The irony of all this is, I showed her an article saying that Soy fields were now the leading cause of rain forest destruction, and she responded with "I like soy" and walked away. I now disregard almost anything she has to say on the matter, because frankly, I now believe she&#39;s doing it for either: non conformity, or some self rightous bullshit I don&#39;t dare attempt to delve in to.


Anyway, I eat meat, and enjoy it. I wouldn&#39;t eat meat if say, a cow, was on a higher thought process than a beetle(I exagerate a bit). I know "animals have feelings too", but only in the simplest sense. It knows pain, fear, and a very simple gratification feeling, say when it eats. Animals are here for a reason, and as long as we aren&#39;t eating something that&#39;s in danger of being wiped out (namely our seafood) then it&#39;s okay by me.

[welshred]

I heard somthing funny on TV last night.

" I only eat meat, that cow will have eaten all the vegetables I need."

[ElliDisaster]

I eat meat .. But i prefer it to be Free range... it tastes much better.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 12:30 pm
I eat meat .. But i prefer it to be Free range... it tastes much better.
bullshit

[welshred]

Free range and factory farmed taste the same its the same meat.

[An archist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:06 pm
I heard somthing funny on TV last night.

" I only eat meat, that cow will have eaten all the vegetables I need."
if you only eat meat, you die

[The Anarchist Prince]

Originally posted by An archist+February 11, 2007 08:37 pm--> (An archist @ February 11, 2007 08:37 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:06 pm
I heard somthing funny on TV last night.

" I only eat meat, that cow will have eaten all the vegetables I need."
if you only eat meat, you die [/b]
It was a joke.

[bretty]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 07:02 am
*Sigh* one of my best friends is partly veggie-fied, as I teasingly jest her. She somehow believes eating meat, and animal cruelty are the exact same. The irony of all this is, I showed her an article saying that Soy fields were now the leading cause of rain forest destruction, and she responded with "I like soy" and walked away. I now disregard almost anything she has to say on the matter, because frankly, I now believe she&#39;s doing it for either: non conformity, or some self rightous bullshit I don&#39;t dare attempt to delve in to.


Anyway, I eat meat, and enjoy it. I wouldn&#39;t eat meat if say, a cow, was on a higher thought process than a beetle(I exagerate a bit). I know "animals have feelings too", but only in the simplest sense. It knows pain, fear, and a very simple gratification feeling, say when it eats. Animals are here for a reason, and as long as we aren&#39;t eating something that&#39;s in danger of being wiped out (namely our seafood) then it&#39;s okay by me.
It&#39;s funny because the most frequent argument I&#39;ve heard from people who discuss the topic with me is "I like meat". (if you consider that an argument)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by bretty+February 12, 2007 09:47 pm--> (bretty @ February 12, 2007 09:47 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 07:02 am
*Sigh* one of my best friends is partly veggie-fied, as I teasingly jest her. She somehow believes eating meat, and animal cruelty are the exact same. The irony of all this is, I showed her an article saying that Soy fields were now the leading cause of rain forest destruction, and she responded with "I like soy" and walked away. I now disregard almost anything she has to say on the matter, because frankly, I now believe she&#39;s doing it for either: non conformity, or some self rightous bullshit I don&#39;t dare attempt to delve in to.


Anyway, I eat meat, and enjoy it. I wouldn&#39;t eat meat if say, a cow, was on a higher thought process than a beetle(I exagerate a bit). I know "animals have feelings too", but only in the simplest sense. It knows pain, fear, and a very simple gratification feeling, say when it eats. Animals are here for a reason, and as long as we aren&#39;t eating something that&#39;s in danger of being wiped out (namely our seafood) then it&#39;s okay by me.
It&#39;s funny because the most frequent argument I&#39;ve heard from people who discuss the topic with me is "I like meat". (if you consider that an argument) [/b]
YOu conider it an argument as compared to what: I consider the subjective rights of a creature that is not of my species? :lol: Are you trying to suggest that a meat eater tht happens to like meat has a worse argument thab a veggie who happens to find meat morally repugnant?

[Purple]

I do eat meat. I do not support the torturous way the butchering process is being performed, and I believe hunting ones own meat is the most humane thing to do. I would rather eat a natural bird, than support the business of slaughtering, the way it is being performed today. However, it is hard to gain meat without going through those channels, and because of affordability and consumption "effectiveness" it is nearly impossible to steer away from it, even though I limit my consumption from those brands that I know treat their animals horrenderous.

Morrissey brings up some good points in his song Meat is Murder, though..

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+February 13, 2007 01:18 am--> (Jazzratt @ February 13, 2007 01:18 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:47 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 07:02 am
*Sigh* one of my best friends is partly veggie-fied, as I teasingly jest her. She somehow believes eating meat, and animal cruelty are the exact same. The irony of all this is, I showed her an article saying that Soy fields were now the leading cause of rain forest destruction, and she responded with "I like soy" and walked away. I now disregard almost anything she has to say on the matter, because frankly, I now believe she&#39;s doing it for either: non conformity, or some self rightous bullshit I don&#39;t dare attempt to delve in to.


Anyway, I eat meat, and enjoy it. I wouldn&#39;t eat meat if say, a cow, was on a higher thought process than a beetle(I exagerate a bit). I know "animals have feelings too", but only in the simplest sense. It knows pain, fear, and a very simple gratification feeling, say when it eats. Animals are here for a reason, and as long as we aren&#39;t eating something that&#39;s in danger of being wiped out (namely our seafood) then it&#39;s okay by me.
It&#39;s funny because the most frequent argument I&#39;ve heard from people who discuss the topic with me is "I like meat". (if you consider that an argument)
YOu conider it an argument as compared to what: I consider the subjective rights of a creature that is not of my species? :lol: Are you trying to suggest that a meat eater tht happens to like meat has a worse argument thab a veggie who happens to find meat morally repugnant? [/b]
I&#39;m not suggesting anything, especially not anything involving the word morality brother sir, besides the fact that it was funny to hear the story about a vegetarian using the same argument that I&#39;ve heard many others use when discussing the issue of eating meat with them.

[RASHskins]

i voted yes for im a vegetarian

I keep it simple dont eat meat because of health, environmental, and animal welfare reasons. But i don&#39;t go around patronizing people about their choice of what to eat. But if anyone is thinking of going vegetarian or vegan i will give you some advice on what things to eat.

[Bilan]

I&#39;m a vegan.
Sorry, but I find alot of these "justifications" for eating meat kind of ...ridiculous.
The most common one being "I like the taste...".
You know, that&#39; spretty pathetic.
And it&#39;s no different to an arguement like "I like being rich because I love living in luxury".
The difference being, it&#39;s an a non human animal.
It&#39;s still exploitation; you&#39;re still merely using them as a product, not as a living thing; and you still don&#39;t have any fucking right to do it.
I mean, you can&#39;t find a justifaction for exploiting something because it "tastes nice". That&#39;s fucking bullshit. Nothing short of it.

And on another point&#33; Why is that the arguement that "all other animals do it, go tell them not to eat meat" is constantly brought up&#33;?? Don&#39;t you realise that that arguement is moronic??
Other animals do not farm other animals. None. No animal but humans do it.
If you want to use that arguement, then go out and hunt animals with your bare hands, then it might hold some ground; but until then, you&#39;re arguement is worthless.
Humans do not need to eat meat, it is far from a necessity.

-----

And also, to the person who said it makes no difference if you eat meat or vegetables some CEO is going to profiting from it; that&#39;s bullshit too.
That completely rules out any organic farms; growing vegetables at home, or anything of that nature. Those things do exist.
And another difference is, yeah, there&#39;s a huge fuckign difference anyway. Eating meat = The senseless slaughter and rape of another creature purely to suit your desires.
Vegetables = A necessity.



Animal liberation is human liberation.
When every cage is broken, and every chain is broken, we will be free.

[Vanguard1917]

Animal liberation is human liberation.
When every cage is broken, and every chain is broken, we will be free.

&#39;Animal liberation&#39; and human liberation are contradictory, not complementary. I hope this is something which you are capable of comprehending.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 04:16 pm

Animal liberation is human liberation.
When every cage is broken, and every chain is broken, we will be free.

&#39;Animal liberation&#39; and human liberation are contradictory, not complementary. I hope this is something which you are capable of comprehending.
I disagree, but I would like to hear your reasoning..

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 03, 2006 02:16 am
Hey, this thread is antisemitic.

Where is the kosher option? ;)

Luís Henrique
this one presumably:
"Yes, but only certain types (specify)"


no pork for me. but meat is good :D

[Fodman]

I eat meat, and I also work in a butcher&#39;s..... plus, having watched the &#39;Kill It Cook It Eat It&#39; series on TV the other week on the BBC, I can safely say my view has not changed.

Sure, you may look at what they do as savage - but they do it in the most humane way possible (even though the show did only show one abattoir in action)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 15, 2007 06:08 am
I&#39;m a vegan.
So, what exactly is it you vegans have in their diet that provides them with the smug sense of superiority?


Sorry, but I find alot of these "justifications" for eating meat kind of ...ridiculous. Just as I find your arguments against eating meat completley stupid.

The most common one being "I like the taste...".
You know, that&#39; spretty pathetic. No it isn&#39;t. Lots of people do things because they like it. In fact it&#39;s one of the best reasons to do something, when you do things you like your brain rewards you by releasing "happy hormones" into your body.

And it&#39;s no different to an arguement like "I like being rich because I love living in luxury". Yes, but their are better arguments against being rich than there are against eating meat.

The difference being, it&#39;s an a non human animal. Look, cretin, we&#39;re all human animals so why the welfare of non-human animals should bother us at all unless it proves to be detrimental to our species is quite beyond me.

It&#39;s still exploitation; you&#39;re still merely using them as a product, not as a living thing; and you still don&#39;t have any fucking right to do it. Well actually you put the reason for doing it quite succinctly in your statement above - they are non-human animals.

I mean, you can&#39;t find a justifaction for exploiting something because it "tastes nice". How about these ones: It is not sapient and it&#39;s flesh is not toxic to us.
That&#39;s fucking bullshit. Nothing short of it. No being a thick headed vegan hippy **** is fucking bullshit. When one eats meat one tends to avoid the shit and go straight for eating the bull ;)


And on another point&#33; Why is that the arguement that "all other animals do it, go tell them not to eat meat" is constantly brought up&#33;?? Well because they are creatures that eat meat and in the case of some of them they&#39;re even omnivores like us.
Don&#39;t you realise that that arguement is moronic?? You think it&#39;s moronic, but that&#39;s because you&#39;re a mouth breathing cretin.

Other animals do not farm other animals. None. No animal but humans do it. No other herbivores have developed our advanced level of agriculture either, what&#39;s your point?

If you want to use that arguement, then go out and hunt animals with your bare hands, Why the fuck would I do that? We have tools for that kind of thing now. Unless of course you think tools are a bad thing as well...
then it might hold some ground; but until then, you&#39;re arguement is worthless. No it isn&#39;t. Your argument is absurd - we should only ever do things without tools - we shouldn&#39;t grow vegetables then, and we certainly shouldn&#39;t cook or spice them. Do you realise how ridiculous you&#39;re being?

Humans do not need to eat meat, it is far from a necessity. So is rec recreational drug use, casual sex, listening to music, many forms of social interaction and a whole host of other things.


And also, to the person who said it makes no difference if you eat meat or vegetables some CEO is going to profiting from it; that&#39;s bullshit too. If you want to have food that&#39;s affordable to ordinary working class individuals then yes, I&#39;m afraid it will profit some fat **** executives.

That completely rules out any organic farms; growing vegetables at home, or anything of that nature. Those things do exist. Organic farms also raise animals and tend to be owned by larger companies, those that aren&#39;t tend to get destroyed by the competition because it costs a lot to have your farm identified as organic and they are using inferior farming methods to produces an inferior crop that just isn&#39;t as large as those on bigger farms or on non-organic farms. As for home growing you can also home rear animals fairly cheaply so their is no reason to mean that home growing precludes meat eating.

And another difference is, yeah, there&#39;s a huge fuckign difference anyway. Eating meat = The senseless slaughter and rape of another creature purely to suit your desires. Generally eating meat only involves the slaughter of another animal.

Vegetables = A necessity. If we only did things that were necessary our society wouldn&#39;t have advanced beyond hunter/gatherer, we innovate we do things that are unnecessary - we invented the condom so we could have unnecessary sex, we invented houses and ways of heating them so we could survive in places that it wasn&#39;t necessary for us to live in, we invented musical instruments so we could make unnecessary noises that we happened to find pleasant - the list of unnecessary things we have done is endless.
But tell you what, you can go back to the part of Africa that humanity originated from, take off all your clothes and live off vegetables - it&#39;ll be one less idiot vegan over here.

Animal liberation is human liberation.
When every cage is broken, and every chain is broken, we will be free. You&#39;re wrong. All that will happen if we "liberate" animals is that they will be more free than us.

[RNK]

I&#39;m all for not treating animals cruelly, but most of this just doesn&#39;t fly. By your arguements, we should also be liberating the gazelles and zebras in Africa from the tyranny of the lions.

Eating meat is scientifically natural, and by some accounts is the main reason we humans were able to evolve past the swinging-from-trees stage. If your problem is with the way animals are treated, would you start eating meat if we let all the cows and chickens and pigs roam the wilderness as wild and free animals that we hunted on an individual basis?

[apathy maybe]

Jazzratt, sometimes I despair. This thread is about someone eating meat. They said they were a vegan, which implies that, no they don&#39;t eat meat.

I didn&#39;t get any smug sense of superiority out of the claim, "I am a vegan". It was a statement, and a legitimate response to the question posed.
So asking, "what exactly is it you vegans have in their diet that provides them with the smug sense of superiority?" is stupid. Though I know you are unlikely to care about driving someone away. Oh well.

Anyway, Bite the hand I think you should read about freeganism. Being vegan often means not examining where your food comes from, so long as it hasn&#39;t got animal products in it. So living as a vegan, can often be as damaging to both the environment and the well fair of animals (if not more so), then eating meat.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 15, 2007 05:27 pm
Jazzratt, sometimes I despair. This thread is about someone eating meat. They said they were a vegan, which implies that, no they don&#39;t eat meat.

I didn&#39;t get any smug sense of superiority out of the claim, "I am a vegan". It was a statement, and a legitimate response to the question posed.
So asking, "what exactly is it you vegans have in their diet that provides them with the smug sense of superiority?" is stupid. Though I know you are unlikely to care about driving someone away. Oh well.
Did you read the rest of their post? Not all vegans are sumug and superior - obviously, I know quite a few that aren&#39;t. This guy, however, is a total wanker.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 16, 2007 11:52 am--> (Jazzratt @ March 16, 2007 11:52 am)
apathy [email protected] 15, 2007 05:27 pm
Jazzratt, sometimes I despair. This thread is about someone eating meat. They said they were a vegan, which implies that, no they don&#39;t eat meat.

I didn&#39;t get any smug sense of superiority out of the claim, "I am a vegan". It was a statement, and a legitimate response to the question posed.
So asking, "what exactly is it you vegans have in their diet that provides them with the smug sense of superiority?" is stupid. Though I know you are unlikely to care about driving someone away. Oh well.
Did you read the rest of their post? Not all vegans are sumug and superior - obviously, I know quite a few that aren&#39;t. This guy, however, is a total wanker. [/b]
Nah, I was just annoyed at how much of an arsehole you&#39;re being to anyone who doesn&#39;t eat meat here.
You&#39;ve spoken to everyone here who isn&#39;t a meat eater as if they were stupid. You were being no more arrogant than I was.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 15, 2007 10:23 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 15, 2007 10:23 pm)
Bite the [email protected] 15, 2007 06:08 am
I&#39;m a vegan.
So, what exactly is it you vegans have in their diet that provides them with the smug sense of superiority?


Sorry, but I find alot of these "justifications" for eating meat kind of ...ridiculous. Just as I find your arguments against eating meat completley stupid.

The most common one being "I like the taste...".
You know, that&#39; spretty pathetic. No it isn&#39;t. Lots of people do things because they like it. In fact it&#39;s one of the best reasons to do something, when you do things you like your brain rewards you by releasing "happy hormones" into your body.

And it&#39;s no different to an arguement like "I like being rich because I love living in luxury". Yes, but their are better arguments against being rich than there are against eating meat.

The difference being, it&#39;s an a non human animal. Look, cretin, we&#39;re all human animals so why the welfare of non-human animals should bother us at all unless it proves to be detrimental to our species is quite beyond me.

It&#39;s still exploitation; you&#39;re still merely using them as a product, not as a living thing; and you still don&#39;t have any fucking right to do it. Well actually you put the reason for doing it quite succinctly in your statement above - they are non-human animals.

I mean, you can&#39;t find a justifaction for exploiting something because it "tastes nice". How about these ones: It is not sapient and it&#39;s flesh is not toxic to us.
That&#39;s fucking bullshit. Nothing short of it. No being a thick headed vegan hippy **** is fucking bullshit. When one eats meat one tends to avoid the shit and go straight for eating the bull ;)


And on another point&#33; Why is that the arguement that "all other animals do it, go tell them not to eat meat" is constantly brought up&#33;?? Well because they are creatures that eat meat and in the case of some of them they&#39;re even omnivores like us.
Don&#39;t you realise that that arguement is moronic?? You think it&#39;s moronic, but that&#39;s because you&#39;re a mouth breathing cretin.

Other animals do not farm other animals. None. No animal but humans do it. No other herbivores have developed our advanced level of agriculture either, what&#39;s your point?

If you want to use that arguement, then go out and hunt animals with your bare hands, Why the fuck would I do that? We have tools for that kind of thing now. Unless of course you think tools are a bad thing as well...
then it might hold some ground; but until then, you&#39;re arguement is worthless. No it isn&#39;t. Your argument is absurd - we should only ever do things without tools - we shouldn&#39;t grow vegetables then, and we certainly shouldn&#39;t cook or spice them. Do you realise how ridiculous you&#39;re being?

Humans do not need to eat meat, it is far from a necessity. So is rec recreational drug use, casual sex, listening to music, many forms of social interaction and a whole host of other things.


And also, to the person who said it makes no difference if you eat meat or vegetables some CEO is going to profiting from it; that&#39;s bullshit too. If you want to have food that&#39;s affordable to ordinary working class individuals then yes, I&#39;m afraid it will profit some fat **** executives.

That completely rules out any organic farms; growing vegetables at home, or anything of that nature. Those things do exist. Organic farms also raise animals and tend to be owned by larger companies, those that aren&#39;t tend to get destroyed by the competition because it costs a lot to have your farm identified as organic and they are using inferior farming methods to produces an inferior crop that just isn&#39;t as large as those on bigger farms or on non-organic farms. As for home growing you can also home rear animals fairly cheaply so their is no reason to mean that home growing precludes meat eating.

And another difference is, yeah, there&#39;s a huge fuckign difference anyway. Eating meat = The senseless slaughter and rape of another creature purely to suit your desires. Generally eating meat only involves the slaughter of another animal.

Vegetables = A necessity. If we only did things that were necessary our society wouldn&#39;t have advanced beyond hunter/gatherer, we innovate we do things that are unnecessary - we invented the condom so we could have unnecessary sex, we invented houses and ways of heating them so we could survive in places that it wasn&#39;t necessary for us to live in, we invented musical instruments so we could make unnecessary noises that we happened to find pleasant - the list of unnecessary things we have done is endless.
But tell you what, you can go back to the part of Africa that humanity originated from, take off all your clothes and live off vegetables - it&#39;ll be one less idiot vegan over here.

Animal liberation is human liberation.
When every cage is broken, and every chain is broken, we will be free. You&#39;re wrong. All that will happen if we "liberate" animals is that they will be more free than us. [/b]
Jazzrat, there&#39;s a difference between sex, and pleasure in general, and slaughtering something for pleasure.
Do you justify murdering people because someone enjoys it?
If the answer is no, why justify it for a non-human animal?
Inferiority, or because it tastes good are not justifcations for it. At all.

It should bother us because it&#39;s us directly causing it because of our selfishness .
The reason they suffer is because of the way we exploit them. They suffer for us. That is why we should be concerned with it.

Yes, it&#39;s not toxic to us to eat animals, so what? That doesn&#39;t make it okay. Infact, that&#39;s pretty much irrelevent. Toxic or not, it&#39;s murder.

It&#39;s irrelevent what other animals do. The fact is, humans are a more advanced species - and the evidence is undoublty undeniable - and have the ability, as omnivores, to subsist of vegetables, fruit, etc and not meat, so why the fuck shouldn&#39;t we?

I never said we shouldn&#39;t do anything without tools, you&#39;re completely failed at understanding what I was saying.
I said "hunt with your bare hands" in regards to "other animals do it" (it being eat other animals). If you want to use such a moronic arguement, then go and hunt them with your bare hands, cause thats how "other animals do it".
Growing vegetables was a suggestion to avoid putting all your money into corporations. Cook or spice them? Do you realise how you&#39;re trying to make my points, though I didn&#39;t say of those things? I really fucking hope so.
I&#39;m not against cooking, or using tools, or anything like that. I am against the selfish, and senseless slaughter of millions and millions of animals purely for the selfish desires people .

Drugs, casual sex, listening to music and social interaction do not involve these things:

- Murder
- Exploitation
- Farming
- Branding
- Suffering

And unless they do, they are basically irrelevent.
People shouldn&#39;t live just by necessity, but when it comes to things like murder it&#39;s an entirely different thing. And if you can&#39;t see why, then I suggest you get off your computer and have a good think.

And I think you failed to understand what I ment at the end.
I was intially saying, until we are all free, no one is.

[Sentinel]

But there isn&#39;t any rational reason not to eat meat. So any decision to not eat meat, a huge protein source, seems irrational, or &#39;stupid&#39;, to me at least..

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:24 pm
But there isn&#39;t any rational reason not to eat meat. So any decision to not eat meat, a huge protein source, seems irrational, or &#39;stupid&#39;, to me at least..
I guessed that this was partly due to health reasons (hence the protein), so I got a few things just on that note.

"Tofu is relatively high in protein, about 10.7% for firm tofu and 5.3% for soft "silken" tofu with about 2% and 1% fat respectively as a percentage of weight.3

In 1995, the New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 333, No. 5) published a report from the University of Kentucky entitled, "Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Soy Protein Intake on Serum Lipids." It was financed by the PTI division of DuPont,"The Solae Co."[3] St. Louis, Missouri. This meta-analysis concluded that soy protein is correlated with significant decreases in serum cholesterol, Low Density Lipoprotein LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglyceride concentrations"

"The FDA granted this health claim for soy: "25 grams of soy protein a day, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease." One serving, (1 cup or 240 mL) of soy milk, for instance, contains 6 or 7 grams of soy protein."

"In contrast, soy products such as tofu, soy butter, soy nuts, or some soy burgers should be beneficial to cardiovascular and overall health because of their high content of polyunsaturated fats, fiber, vitamins, and minerals and low content of saturated fat. Using these and other soy foods to replace foods high in animal protein that contain saturated fat and cholesterol may confer benefits to cardiovascular health." - Heart Healthy


source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu#Nutritio...lth_information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tofu#Nutrition_and_health_information)

I can&#39;t speak for every person who doesn&#39;t eat meat, but I can say that many people who choose to stop eating meat do it out of compassion, or for health reasons.

[Yazman]

Killing an animal is not "murder." The term "murder" is reserved for the deliberate killing of sapient beings, the only ones we currently know of being human. If we make first contact with extraterrestrials any time soon then "murder" will also apply to them.

Killing an animal is just killing an animal. It isn&#39;t murder. There is nothing wrong with killing an animal. It&#39;s just a fucking animal&#33; It&#39;s not sapient&#33;

[Pilar]

Kill animals and eat them, keep yourself warm with them, use their bodies for your benefit.

To me the only wrong thing is to kill them and not use them. If you don&#39;t want to use them, don&#39;t kill them and take their lives for mere pleasure of the act.

But, by all means, pass the meat over to me&#33;

On that note, because I am careful about my body, I only eat beet one a week. Chicken I can eat twice a week, and also fish. But I love vegitables, especially green ones.

I do not believe animals deserve rights as human beings deserve them. I never know from where some people get the idea they should have rights. I don&#39;t believe in torturing them, but if a they stand between the cure for cancer, I say use the little guys to better conditions for humans.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

They&#39;re conscious and have emotions, in particular fear and happiness. That&#39;s all I need to be a veggie. :)

I think it&#39;s basically a personal choice. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a drastic ethical dilemma, just whether or not you confine your moral compass to your own species.

-Alex

[Brekisonphilous]

I&#39;m vegetarian.

My reasons are because I believe the lives of animals should not be exploited to benefit capitalism

It is extremely inefficient to grow grain to feed to animals to then butcher for food. The grain used to fatten up livestock could be used to feed the poor. They aren&#39;t eating meat right now, they are starving. I Don&#39;t need meat to continue living and can be even healthier without it so why continue consuming something unnecessary?

Moral reasons... Animals have the capacity to suffer just as humans do, they just have a different face. Who am I to deem their lives as less than mine? I am perfectly fine with animals and I love them, I would rather coexist with them. They are entitled to their freedom just as I am.

On animal testing, I believe that it is completely ridiculous outside of medical research. To torture animals just to see what some fucking cleaning product does to it is just inhumane. If the product has the potential to be so dangerous, maybe it shouldn&#39;t be made.
But in terms of medical research, I support it for the most part in order to benefit the health and well being of the people and animals of our planet.

[freakazoid]

Yes, it&#39;s not toxic to us to eat animals, so what? That doesn&#39;t make it okay. Infact, that&#39;s pretty much irrelevent. Toxic or not, it&#39;s murder.

If it is about murder then would it be ok to eat an aborted cow?

Also what about the plants? They are considered living. Do you not care about them? Or is it because a plant doesn&#39;t have eyes and can look you in the face and look all cute?

[Brekisonphilous]

plants lack a central nervous system, thus unable to perceive pain. Furthermore, plants are the staple food of all life, without nothing could survive. it is necessary to consume it. It does not take as much energy to grow.

[kurohata]

as anarchists/marxists/communists/lennists/whatever there is one key reason why you, of all people should take into consideration the lives of all animals, and not just humyns.

that reason is the exploitation. it is the same exploitation that you as someone who identifies with some form of socialism (including anarchism) detest, and want to rid the world of.
how can you expect the world to change, when you yourself are not ready to change?

how can you talk of a world free of oppression, violence, and heirachy, when you yourself continue to inflict these on other beings, despite a having the choice to stop?

humyns who eat meat fund destruction, torture, violence and murder, exactly as the state does.

how can you talk of one form of equality, and not only neglect another, but add to and pay for the rapant killing and oppression.

you cant do so without contradicting everything you say.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Because they are only concerned with the welfare of humanity. Animals are only worthy of consideration to the point that they are valuable to humans.

That&#39;s what they&#39;ll tell you. I had a debate with Dr. Rosenpenis, who takes this idea to it&#39;s logical extreme, a month or so back. He has no problem with burning cats for entertainment, for example.

It&#39;s a matter of separate paradigms, you see. Some of us take into account more than humanity, some don&#39;t, and bridging the gap for long enough to have a productive discussion is... difficult, if not imposssible.

-Alex

[ichneumon]

as anarchists/marxists/communists/lennists/whatever there is one key reason why you, of all people should take into consideration the lives of all animals, and not just humyns.

actually, no. animal welfare is secondary, at best.

1)it&#39;s hideously destructive to the environment. livestock produces more greenhouse gases than transportation.
2)it&#39;s inefficient. the same area of land devoted to growing vegetables can feed more people than the same area used for livestock - growing broccoli produces more protein than growing cows
3)global hunger. current agricultural production could feed the world a vegetarian diet
4)it&#39;s a breeding ground for disease. almost all human diseases originated in livestock. there would be no danger of bird flu if people would not farm birds and pigs.

about "humyns" - please, just don&#39;t.

[Yazman]

plants lack a central nervous system, thus unable to perceive pain. Furthermore, plants are the staple food of all life, without nothing could survive. it is necessary to consume it. It does not take as much energy to grow.

Plants are the staple food of herbivores not all life. Carnivores do not need to consume any plant life in order to survive.


1)it&#39;s hideously destructive to the environment. livestock produces more greenhouse gases than transportation.

Oh please, if you&#39;re going to make an outrageous claim like this please provide the evidence because it is quite plain to see that a few cow farts are nowhere near as polluting as a car that belts out all that smoke.


4)it&#39;s a breeding ground for disease. almost all human diseases originated in livestock. there would be no danger of bird flu if people would not farm birds and pigs.

Bird flu is just a load of hype and paranoia. It is about as threatening as SARS.


2)it&#39;s inefficient. the same area of land devoted to growing vegetables can feed more people than the same area used for livestock - growing broccoli produces more protein than growing cows

You need to eat four times as much vegetable protein in order to absorb the same amount as you would from animal-based protein. Growing broccoli does produce MORE protein but the quality of it for humans is FAR lower, the human body is adapted to absorb protein from cows much more readily than it is from broccoli.

[ichneumon]

According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.



Bird flu is just a load of hype and paranoia. It is about as threatening as SARS.

i&#39;m a disease ecologist. you&#39;re an idiot. although, that statement is nearly true. SARS was VERY dangerous. 11% fatality. we dodged a bullet there. AND it came from eating animals. then again, H5N1 is 75% lethal, whereas the last major flu pandemic was 2.5% lethal.

quote Yazman

You need to eat four times as much vegetable protein in order to absorb the same amount as you would from animal-based protein. Growing broccoli does produce MORE protein but the quality of it for humans is FAR lower, the human body is adapted to absorb protein from cows much more readily than it is from broccoli.


Oh please, if you&#39;re going to make an outrageous claim like this please provide the evidence

can&#39;t find anything suggesting this - this is the science forum, citations from respectable journals, please

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:27 pm
as anarchists/marxists/communists/lennists/whatever there is one key reason why you, of all people should take into consideration the lives of all animals, and not just humyns.
Sorry if you spell it humyns no one is going to take you seriously. Animal welfarists can fuck off.

[midnight marauder]

I&#39;ve been a vegan for a little over a year and half.

I have no desire to debate the subject.

I will say, though, that the reason I am a vegan, as well as one of the main reason I&#39;m a leftist, is that I try to do what I can to minimize suffering. It&#39;s really that simple.

Also, just anecdotally, I&#39;ll say that I had never been as healthy or felt as well in my life until I stopped consuming animal products.

[Demogorgon]

I&#39;ll stop eating animals when they stop tasting so nice.

I will say though tat I dissaprove of cruel farming methods. I do not approve of animals suffering more than is necessary on the way to my dinner plate.

[Cheung Mo]

Whether you eat an animal or a plant, you are killing something...So I try not to thing about it...I&#39;m trying to lose weight and get myself into shape, so I&#39;m just eating healthy, working out, drinking water, and phasing out all of my caffeine and alcoholic consumption in favour of marijuana consumption, as psychedelics are more conducive towards a healthy lifestyle than either stimulants or depressants. :D

[Yazman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:14 am
i&#39;m a disease ecologist. you&#39;re an idiot. although, that statement is nearly true. SARS was VERY dangerous. 11% fatality. we dodged a bullet there. AND it came from eating animals. then again, H5N1 is 75% lethal, whereas the last major flu pandemic was 2.5% lethal.

Nice job hijacking the topic with flames, fuckhead. Why the hell should I even bother responding if you&#39;re going to talk shit to me like that?

Randomly insulting people is not cool, and it doesn&#39;t prove anything.

[ichneumon]

Nice job hijacking the topic with flames, fuckhead. Why the hell should I even bother responding if you&#39;re going to talk shit to me like that?

generally, i agree with that. considering the context, i can&#39;t honestly retract the statement, but i do apologize for being vulgar. so we can now get beyond it and you can address the rest of the response.

[midnight marauder]

I will say though tat I dissaprove of cruel farming methods. I do not approve of animals suffering more than is necessary on the way to my dinner plate.

This reply isn&#39;t necessarily directed at you, but I&#39;d like to use this quote as a segway into a question of consistency for people who approve of meat eating:

If you believe that the practice is justifiable based on the fact that (farm) animals cannot contribute (in other ways besides being on a dish) to society, that they are excluded and separate from our society, and that because of this, they have no rights, then why do you care how they&#39;re treated? They have no rights according to this line of arguementation.

If you believe that animals raised in factory farm enviornments can suffer physically, and at the same time that they don&#39;t have the right to have this suffering recognized, then the issue is one of priority: how do you justify ignoring this in favor of, as comrade Demogorgon puts it, "tasting [something] so nice"?

Thanks,

Juice "Crazy Vegan Extremist Eco-Terrorist" One

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:14 pm

I will say though tat I dissaprove of cruel farming methods. I do not approve of animals suffering more than is necessary on the way to my dinner plate.

This reply isn&#39;t necessarily directed at you, but I&#39;d like to use this quote as a segway into a question of consistency for people who approve of meat eating:
I&#39;ll bite, I approve of eating meat.
(By the way, I&#39;m - probably for the first time in my life and also probably the last time in this post - not having a go at you but it&#39;s spelt segue, it&#39;s a bastard of a word to spell but it does make one sound a lot more intelligent than may be the case :P )


If you believe that the practice is justifiable based on the fact that (farm) animals cannot contribute (in other ways besides being on a dish) to society, that they are excluded and separate from our society, and that because of this, they have no rights, then why do you care how they&#39;re treated?
I don&#39;t really. Unless the harm caused is detrimental to the taste of the meat or if the treatment is to no end (i.e it&#39;s fine to keep a lot of animals in a small space because you can use space more efficiently but to hit your pig every day for a stick for no reason is a waste of time.).
They have no rights according to this line of arguementation.
Correct.


If you believe that animals raised in factory farm enviornments can suffer physically, and at the same time that they don&#39;t have the right to have this suffering recognized, then the issue is one of priority: how do you justify ignoring this in favor of, as comrade Demogorgon puts it, "tasting [something] so nice"?
Well I would justify it, if I believed that the animal&#39;s suffering mattered, by pointing out that the animal has been created and raised for the purpose of being eaten and that though we have created it to end its life prematurely we may as well make that life comfortable as there is no reason not to,


Thanks,

Juice "Crazy Vegan Extremist Eco-Terrorist" One
You&#39;re welcome

Jazzratt "Nutty Anthropocentric Communist" Forty Seven.

[midnight marauder]

A few answers to some of the arguements on here:


Because they are only concerned with the welfare of humanity. Animals are only worthy of consideration to the point that they are valuable to humans.

This is the line of thinking I referenced in my previous post. Accordingly, either animals have rights or they don&#39;t, and if they don&#39;t, then it&#39;s irrational to care what anyone does to them. Rosen&#39;s example of cat burning is absolutely consistent, and I&#39;m interested in hearing a response to this by anyone who disagrees with this statement yet still consumes factory farm meat.

Further, how do you warrant this arguement? So far, it&#39;s just a statement. Why place human welfare above any other sentient species? Because we&#39;re human? Allow me to draw an analogy to slavery: I&#39;m a white male. People of other races are only of use to me so long as they contribute to what I feel is "valuable" to "humanity". If they do not, they have no rights.

A bit of a stretch, but as a concept, what&#39;s the difference?


3)global hunger. current agricultural production could feed the world a vegetarian diet

The problem of global hunger is really a non-issue. Yeah, this is theoretically true, but theory means very little if it isn&#39;t applicable to the real world. As we all should know by now, the issue of hunger in the world has absolutely nothing to do with the availabilty production of edible foods. There isn&#39;t a shortage of food in the world in the least bit. In fact, the USDA estimates that nearly 50 billion people could be fed on the food wasted by the USA alone. The problem is not in the availability of food (meat or otherwise), but rather in the trade of food:


every country on earth (with the possible minor exceptions of some city-states) has sufficient agricultural capacity to feed its own people, but that the "free trade" economic order associated with such institutions as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank prevent this from happening.


Amartya Sen won his 1998 Nobel Prize in part for his work demonstrating that malnutrition in modern times was not typically the product of a lack of food; rather, malnutrition usually arose from problems in food distribution networks or from governmental policies in the developing world.
-both quoted from Wiki

Gotta love capitalism.


about "humyns" - please, just don&#39;t.

&


Sorry if you spell it humyns no one is going to take you seriously. Animal welfarists can fuck off.

Oh, come on. Attack the arguement, not the person. If one feels that they can help the fight against patriarchy through their use of languange, why do you care? Leave it for a different thread.


Plants are the staple food of herbivores not all life. Carnivores do not need to consume any plant life in order to survive.

Except that carnivores need plants to live as well. Not because they consume them, but because they often (usually?) consume animals that ARE herbivores or omnivores.


Oh please, if you&#39;re going to make an outrageous claim like this please provide the evidence because it is quite plain to see that a few cow farts are nowhere near as polluting as a car that belts out all that smoke.

Agreed. The two really aren&#39;t comprable. But it certainly doesn&#39;t help:


Belches and, to a far lesser degree, farts from sheep, cows and other farm animals account for around 20% of global methane emissions. The gas is a potent source of global warming because, volume for volume, it traps 23 times as much heat as the more plentiful carbon dioxide.
-source: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6431


It turns out that livestock – predominantly cattle – are responsible for an astonishing proportion of global warming gases - 18 per cent of the total, to be precise.

That’s right, almost a fifth of all emissions which is more greenhouse gas emissions than all the transport on earth – planes, trains, cars, skidoos the lot.

Explained further, not only does the methane from the actual farm animals contribute, but the farms and distrobution processes as well:


So why is the meat we eat so polluting?

Well, first of all we need to get a sense of scale. Seventy per cent of all agricultural land is used to raise animals – that’s a third of the land surface of the entire planet. What’s more, over a third of all cereal production goes to feed those animals.

The UN report estimates that 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are associated with the fossil fuels emitted by this vast global industry – that’s roughly a third of the UK’s total CO2 emissions. The figure includes transporting meat and dairy products across the globe, as well as the carbon dioxide emitted on the farm, in processing and in manufacture of nitrogen fertiliser, which is used to raise crops for feed for animals.

Add in the carbon from deforestation and land degradation and the figure is far, far higher. Most deforested land is used for pasture and the UN reckons the carbon released in the process takes the carbon cost of livestock up to the equivalent of 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That’s around seven per cent of all the greenhouse gases emitted by man.
-both quoted in http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/..._number_on.html (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/02/meet_daisy_the_cow_global_climates_enemy_number_on .html)

Another statistic:


Environmental scientist Professor Frank Convery claims cows breaking wind and belching account for 35% of Ireland&#39;s green-house gas emissions. These have been linked to global climate change.
-quoted in http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/662397.stm

As significant as transportation emissions? Not likely. Horrible for the enviornment? Clearly.


Bird flu is just a load of hype and paranoia. It is about as threatening as SARS.

Uhhh......what the fuck?


You need to eat four times as much vegetable protein in order to absorb the same amount as you would from animal-based protein. Growing broccoli does produce MORE protein but the quality of it for humans is FAR lower, the human body is adapted to absorb protein from cows much more readily than it is from broccoli.

Yes, it&#39;s scientifically proven that vegetable protein is different, and of lower quality than meat sourced protein. I don&#39;t know if the "four times" part of this post is true, but let&#39;s assume it is: So? As I quoted earlier, nearly a third of the world&#39;s land (or a third of the world&#39;s land devoted to agriculture, the article isn&#39;t really clear) is used for raising livestock. This "four times" quota could be quite easily reached if the land was used for other types of foods.


I will say though tat I dissaprove of cruel farming methods. I do not approve of animals suffering more than is necessary on the way to my dinner plate.

Do you honestly believe that the ammount of suffering that occurs on factory farms is necessesary? I figure, in the last two years of my life (more or less), I&#39;ve never met a single "meat eater" who&#39;s really thought this (as far as I know) or argued this in a debate.


Whether you eat an animal or a plant, you are killing something...So I try not to thing about it...

This difference between the two is obvious: animals feel pain, plants do not. The issue isn&#39;t that of killing, it&#39;s that of suffering. Plants are not sentient. Plants do not feel pain when they are raised, nor when "killed".


Nice job hijacking the topic with flames, fuckhead. Why the hell should I even bother responding if you&#39;re going to talk shit to me like that?

Randomly insulting people is not cool, and it doesn&#39;t prove anything.

You&#39;re right. But the evidence provided does. But you can ahead and ignore those if you want, it&#39;s surely making your point stronger. :rolleyes:

Comments/Questions/Arguements (hopefully)/Flames?

[midnight marauder]

Thanks for the reply, mate. What you&#39;ve stated is absolutely consistent with that line of arguement. There&#39;s nothing I can say against that, except that I disagree about the entire premise of it to begin with, which is to say, in short, that the reason I don&#39;t eat meat is because I disprove of the suffering caused to that which can feel pain.

Thanks also for the spelling tip, I never knew that (obviously&#33;). I hate spelling, lol.


Jazzratt "Nutty Anthropocentric Communist" Forty Seven.

:lol:

[ichneumon]

In fact, the USDA estimates that nearly 50 billion people could be fed on the food wasted by the USA alone. The problem is not in the availability of food (meat or otherwise), but rather in the trade of food:

this is obviously wrong. 50 million, perhaps.


Yes, it&#39;s scientifically proven that vegetable protein is different, and of lower quality than meat sourced protein. I don&#39;t know if the "four times" part of this post is true,

all proteins are broken down into amino acids by the enzyme pepsin and several others. no proteins are absorbed directly (except prions). i want to see the reference on this. i&#39;ve never seen a vegan with kwashiorkor.

fyi, i&#39;m the vegetarian here who doesn&#39;t care much for animal rights on a political level.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:11 pm
Thanks for the reply, mate. What you&#39;ve stated is absolutely consistent with that line of arguement. There&#39;s nothing I can say against that, except that I disagree about the entire premise of it to begin with, which is to say, in short, that the reason I don&#39;t eat meat is because I disprove of the suffering caused to that which can feel pain.
Not a problem at all. As long as you&#39;re not planning on or advocate a system that will coerce me into not eating meat then I really don&#39;t mind what you do.


Thanks also for the spelling tip, I never knew that (obviously&#33;). I hate spelling, lol.
Not a problem, if you know what a word means that&#39;s the important part.



Jazzratt "Nutty Anthropocentric Communist" Forty Seven.

:lol:
I try.

[midnight marauder]

Agreed, Jazzratt.

Onto the rebuttals:


this is obviously wrong. 50 million, perhaps.

Yes. Seeing as how there aren&#39;t 50 billion people on the planet, this is an obvious typo. Thanks for correcting that.


all proteins are broken down into amino acids by the enzyme pepsin and several others. no proteins are absorbed directly (except prions). i want to see the reference on this. i&#39;ve never seen a vegan with kwashiorkor.

Try harder homie...I got it on the first hit off a Google search&#33;


Vegetable protein is poor quality compared to the protein in meat however its possible to increase the quality of vegetable protein by combining it with other plant foods. This is a common way vegetarians obtain high quality protein with a diet low in calories and fat. An example of combining plant proteins would be a vegetable curry with rice or naan bread. The two foods complement each other because vegetable protein lacks certain essential amino acids but these are present in the rice and bread forming a meal with a complete protein source.

If all essential amino acids are not present vegetable protein cannot be used for growth or maintenance of tissues. In this case the vegetable protein is usually burned as fuel or may be converted into fat.
-source: http://www.weightlossforall.com/protein-vegetable.htm as well as the link on the page to the difference between the two protein types


fyi, i&#39;m the vegetarian here who doesn&#39;t care much for animal rights on a political level.

May I ask why you&#39;re a vegetarian then? Aesthetics? Or why you disagree with the political component?

For a quick conclusion (also in reference to Jazz&#39;s point on coercion), if you can prove me wrong, go for it. I don&#39;t live my life to be on some moral crusade. I&#39;m not a radical because I believe Marx or any other theorist is infallable. I don&#39;t know if I&#39;m right. I operate as materialistically as I can, which means that I welcome a debate. I welcome the chance that I&#39;m wrong. I accept that, because if I am wrong, then I need to do something about it. That said, I&#39;ve been a vegan for almost two years, shortly after I became a leftist. During this time I haven&#39;t encountered many arguements that I cannot refute without my own worldview ("morally" speaking, if you will -- I&#39;d like to conisder myself a relativist/situationalist in terms of ethics, so that helps), or through science. If I can&#39;t refute them, it&#39;s because of a difference in oppinion, as things tend to come down to with theory. If anyone&#39;s noticed, I only really bothered to read this last page on here, but in that page I&#39;ve addressed the arguements that I thought were, in particular, bullshit, regardless of what side of the issue they fall on. I&#39;m not interested in secular bickering because that doesn&#39;t get anyone anywhere. I&#39;m interested in being as objective as possible, because I feel that that&#39;s the best way to arrive at one&#39;s postion on these sorts of issues.

On that note, I wouldn&#39;t coerce someone to adopt my position. I disagree completely with the practice for someone who has the choice between eating meat or not, but obviously from a practical standpoint it just wouldn&#39;t work. I mean, come on, Jazzratt will be the first to admit that if anyone ever tried to regulate what she could eat, she&#39;d pop a cap in their ass. I regard the situation with meat eaters similar to theist folk: I disagree with you, but regulating you to stop believing in superstitious BS isn&#39;t helping anyone. I think it&#39;s something in which the best solvency is one where the individual themself arrives at the conclusion.

[ichneumon]

-source: http://www.weightlossforall.com/protein-vegetable.htm as well as the link on the page to the difference between the two protein types

this has nothing to do with lack of absorption or anything like that. true, no vegetable has the complete amino acid system, but then again, no one eats just one vegetable. beans and rice&#33; duh&#33; nothing i said was untrue.


May I ask why you&#39;re a vegetarian then? Aesthetics? Or why you disagree with the political component?

animal welfare is politically indefensible, as you will soon learn. while i deplore the cruelty of factory farms, i also support animal medical testing. besides, there are MANY reasons not to eat meat. consider this:

nearly 200,000 cases of Mad Cow (BSE) were detected in the UK in cows, but only a few hundred cases of vCJD in humans - why? pure luck. it only affects humans with an odd otherwise unimportant genetic mutation. tens of thousands of people where exposed to a completely untreatable 100% lethal agent and escaped by pure luck. today, in the US, 0.12% of all beef entering the market is tested for BSE, even though it still pops up randomly, and there is similar epidemic spreading through our native deer species. eat up&#33;

livestock farming is also an ecological disaster, and IS a greater source of greenhouses gases than transportation, according to the UN. it&#39;s also inefficient in terms of food production. etc, etc.

[freakazoid]

This difference between the two is obvious: animals feel pain, plants do not. The issue isn&#39;t that of killing, it&#39;s that of suffering. Plants are not sentient. Plants do not feel pain when they are raised, nor when "killed".

Alright. But what about the part about an aborted animal? It&#39;s not that far fetched really. They do it to lambs, I think it&#39;s lambs, for the fur because the younger the animal the better the fur.

[chimx]

this has nothing to do with lack of absorption or anything like that. true, no vegetable has the complete amino acid system, but then again, no one eats just one vegetable. beans and rice&#33; duh&#33; nothing i said was untrue.

I would add that a further counter to the argument that plant-based material is a lower quality of protein, is that the consumption of all amino acids (thus making a "complete" protein) does not have to be done all in one sitting. So long as you make sure you eat all the amino acids throughout a day or so you will be healthy.

A much more valid argument against vegetarianism/veganism is B12. Due to the fact that we wash now sanitize our vegetables, B12 is no longer found in a plant-based diet. It is found in meat, cause cows don&#39;t give too shits about eating dirty grass.

Luckily we live in an advanced technological society that produces magical pills called "vitamins", which everybody should be eating regardless of your dietary preference.

[apathy maybe]

Fuck that. I don&#39;t eat meat, I don&#39;t eat vitamin supplements. I&#39;m healthy. In fact I haven&#39;t even been eating eggs, only dairy products. (And I keep thinking I shouldn&#39;t be eating them too. There is a nasty hormone that could contribute to prostate cancer in most commercial dairy products.)

Yeast extracts have B12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B12), some sea weed has sufficient levels, tempeh and mushrooms (I love mushrooms, I eat them all the time).

So, dig into that disgusting Vegemite and stay healthy (eat before and after a heavy night of drinking too).

[Yazman]

generally, i agree with that. considering the context, i can&#39;t honestly retract the statement, but i do apologize for being vulgar. so we can now get beyond it and you can address the rest of the response.

Thanks for the apology :) My main source comes from a book I read a while ago, I can go down to the library and get the name and author of it if you like and I&#39;ll give you the page numbers so you can check it out yourself.


his has nothing to do with lack of absorption or anything like that. true, no vegetable has the complete amino acid system, but then again, no one eats just one vegetable. beans and rice&#33; duh&#33; nothing i said was untrue.

This is true but you end up eating a larger quantity of food in general because you have to eat a much more varied diet than you would have had to if you just ate a piece of meat.

[ichneumon]

This is true but you end up eating a larger quantity of food in general because you have to eat a much more varied diet than you would have had to if you just ate a piece of meat.

eating a varied diet is a bad thing? a vegetarian system is still provably more sustainable than an omnivorous system.


So, dig into that disgusting Vegemite and stay healthy (eat before and after a heavy night of drinking too).

nutritional yeast is good, vegemite is unholy.

[Yazman]

eating a varied diet is a bad thing? a vegetarian system is still provably more sustainable than an omnivorous system.

I never said it was a bad thing, just that less food had to be eaten on an omnivorous diet. Variety is a good thing.

[kurohata]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 29, 2007 07:55 am--> (Jazzratt &#064; March 29, 2007 07:55 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 09:14 pm
If you believe that the practice is justifiable based on the fact that (farm) animals cannot contribute (in other ways besides being on a dish) to society, that they are excluded and separate from our society, and that because of this, they have no rights, then why do you care how they&#39;re treated?
I don&#39;t really. Unless the harm caused is detrimental to the taste of the meat or if the treatment is to no end (i.e it&#39;s fine to keep a lot of animals in a small space because you can use space more efficiently but to hit your pig every day for a stick for no reason is a waste of time.). [/b]
by that logic, would you please eat the ruling class while you&#39;re at it. they dont contribute anything :D

but seriously, i feel (personally) that the treatment of animals raised for food is "to no end" because it is not necessary for one to eat meat to stay healthy.

also, in response to replies to my previous post (at the top of the last page) i wasnt meaning that the reason i stated there is the reason i am vegan, but it is a reason why i feel leftists should atleast consider animal exploitation

to to my use of "humyn"; to attack that is quite arrogant. it doesnt affect you at all. if i choose to spell a word like that, then i have every right to, and you have no right to attack that. further, to disregard an argument based on my replacing an &#39;a&#39; with a &#39;y&#39; is plain ignorant.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by kurohata+March 31, 2007 01:00 pm--> (kurohata @ March 31, 2007 01:00 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 07:55 am

[email protected] 28, 2007 09:14 pm
If you believe that the practice is justifiable based on the fact that (farm) animals cannot contribute (in other ways besides being on a dish) to society, that they are excluded and separate from our society, and that because of this, they have no rights, then why do you care how they&#39;re treated?
I don&#39;t really. Unless the harm caused is detrimental to the taste of the meat or if the treatment is to no end (i.e it&#39;s fine to keep a lot of animals in a small space because you can use space more efficiently but to hit your pig every day for a stick for no reason is a waste of time.).
by that logic, would you please eat the ruling class while you&#39;re at it. they dont contribute anything :D [/b]
Sure. Eat The Rich.


but seriously, i feel (personally) that the treatment of animals raised for food is "to no end" because it is not necessary for one to eat meat to stay healthy. That&#39;s neither here nor there, the end is fairly fucking obvious - to whit food. We choose to eat food that is "unnecessary" mostly because we enjoy it.


also, in response to replies to my previous post (at the top of the last page) i wasnt meaning that the reason i stated there is the reason i am vegan, but it is a reason why i feel leftists should atleast consider animal exploitation Good for you. I&#39;ve considered it and it&#39;s bollocks.


to to my use of "humyn"; to attack that is quite arrogant. I&#39;m quite arrogant.
it doesnt affect you at all. Nor does whether or not someone chooses not to eat meat, that hasn&#39;t stopped me dedicating hours of my time to defending the practice.
if i choose to spell a word like that, then i have every right to, And I have every right to judge you as a mental inferior because you spell like a twat.
and you have no right to attack that. Yes I fucking do. It stems from the same right as your right to misspell words; freedom of "speech"
further, to disregard an argument based on my replacing an &#39;a&#39; with a &#39;y&#39; is plain ignorant. I would argue that someone who can&#39;t even spell the word "human" despite seeing it everywhere is fucking stupid. I know people with severe dyslexia that are better able to spell than you. As for your grammar it is a fucking mess - absolutely no capital letters and really weird word orders; I dread to think what crimes you would commit against the humble semi-colon. Oh and by the way the first person singular pronoun (I) is always capitalised.

[kurohata]

clearly &#39;humyn&#39; was not a spelling mistake. i think it was also quite clear that i was not trying to be grammatically correct. you could make sense of what i was saying, yes?




it doesnt affect you at all.
Nor does whether or not someone chooses not to eat meat, that hasn&#39;t stopped me dedicating hours of my time to defending the practice.

but it does affect animals to the point of which they suffer endlessly and ultimately lose their life.



to to my use of "humyn"; to attack that is quite arrogant.
I&#39;m quite arrogant.

i wont dissagree.

look, im not trying to argue with you. i was expressing my opinion on the matter, and im quite sure that i understand your&#39;s. is that not the point of discussion?

on this issue i think its quite clear that no one is going to "win" because the only thing that separates the two arguments is personal opinion.




also, in response to replies to my previous post (at the top of the last page) i wasnt meaning that the reason i stated there is the reason i am vegan, but it is a reason why i feel leftists should atleast consider animal exploitation
Good for you. I&#39;ve considered it and it&#39;s bollocks.
well, all i was asking is that it is considered. if you have done so and reached your conclusion then that is your right, and im not going to object.

one last question. out of interest. what is the exact reason that you do take into consideration, the suffering of animals? obviously you cannot deny that they do suffer. is it because (as was stated before) that they do not contribute anything to society?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:23 am
clearly &#39;humyn&#39; was not a spelling mistake. i think it was also quite clear that i was not trying to be grammatically correct. you could make sense of what i was saying, yes?
Yes and to be fair to you I only bothered singling you out because I was getting fed up of idiot anarchists (and let&#39;s face it, it does tend to be anarchists) who take this odd approach to language that involves ignoring all the framework up to and including such basics as spelling.





it doesnt affect you at all.
Nor does whether or not someone chooses not to eat meat, that hasn&#39;t stopped me dedicating hours of my time to defending the practice.

but it does affect animals to the point of which they suffer endlessly and ultimately lose their life.
That doesn&#39;t mean it affects me. Animals do not matter as far as I am concerned.




to to my use of "humyn"; to attack that is quite arrogant.
I&#39;m quite arrogant.

i wont dissagree.

look, im not trying to argue with you. i was expressing my opinion on the matter, and im quite sure that i understand your&#39;s. is that not the point of discussion?
Well yes, but usually the point is also to promote your idea over the other person&#39;s.


on this issue i think its quite clear that no one is going to "win" because the only thing that separates the two arguments is personal opinion. Clearly.





also, in response to replies to my previous post (at the top of the last page) i wasnt meaning that the reason i stated there is the reason i am vegan, but it is a reason why i feel leftists should atleast consider animal exploitation
Good for you. I&#39;ve considered it and it&#39;s bollocks.
well, all i was asking is that it is considered. if you have done so and reached your conclusion then that is your right, and im not going to object.
Do you never stand up for your beliefs?


one last question. out of interest. what is the exact reason that you do take into consideration, the suffering of animals? obviously you cannot deny that they do suffer. is it because (as was stated before) that they do not contribute anything to society? Partly. Partly it is because they are non-sapient, partly it is because they are non-rational and mostly it&#39;s because they&#39;re non-human.

[kurohata]

Do you never stand up for your beliefs?

of course i do. but im not going to force my ideas onto you


person&#39;s.
um, why would i ever have spelt person with a &#39;y&#39;?


Partly. Partly it is because they are non-sapient, partly it is because they are non-rational and mostly it&#39;s because they&#39;re non-human.

i fail to see how an animal having or not having reasoning can determine whether its suffering important or not. also, the simple fact that an animal does not fall into the catagory of being a humyn is an extremely poor reason not to grant a creatures suffering consideration. it is discrimination and it uses the exact same logic as racism. "because you are not white/humyn you do not deserve consideration"

also, to be an ass; for someone that held grammar as so important, you don&#39;t use commas very well.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 01:53 am

person&#39;s.
um, why would i ever have spelt person with a &#39;y&#39;?

Quite a lot of you types do.



Partly. Partly it is because they are non-sapient, partly it is because they are non-rational and mostly it&#39;s because they&#39;re non-human.

i fail to see how an animal having or not having reasoning can determine whether its suffering important or not. I disagree entirely, it cannot rationalise its suffering or its fate.
also, the simple fact that an animal does not fall into the catagory of being a humyn is an extremely poor reason not to grant a creatures suffering consideration. it is discrimination and it uses the exact same logic as racism. "because you are not white/humyn you do not deserve consideration"
Yes and? I could quite proudly say I am a "speciesist"as an anthropocentric communist I have no reason to care about non-humans.


also, to be an ass; for someone that held grammar as so important, you don&#39;t use commas very well.
Do point out these errors, I live to learn.

[bezdomni]

I don&#39;t like meat. It makes me feel sluggish, the taste is generally unpleasant and I feel more healthy when I don&#39;t eat it.

I don&#39;t condone or condemn vegetarianism. I just personally choose to be one.

[Sonnie]

I&#39;m lactose intolerant, so I don&#39;t consume too much of the milk products, but sometimes...
I&#39;m veggy, but it&#39;s not really &#39;cos I&#39;m against eating meat at all... It&#39;s better for my health (heart disease being the #1 killer of women), for the environment (rainforests getting chopped down for farms), and factory farming is just fucking gross.

I would eat it occasionally if it was hunted.

[Vallegrande]

Sonnie, if you are lactose intolerant, it is because the milk is pasteurized. OR you must ferment the milk in order to break down the lactose with lactase. The Mongolians did this with their ancient raw fermented milk beverage, Kumis I think it was called.

Much of what I see as the argument towards meat is the negative impact to the environment or that it is unhealthy. But can we imagine a society without fences where cows can roam where they please, eating grass instead of grain? No more wasted energy in locking up cows, growing grain for them, etc.

They love grass, and it is so interesting that grass itself is resilient. So it can be roamed practically forever without the land being degraded of the topsoil. Think of all that grass that is mowed down everyday- Useless wasted energy&#33; The cow would take care of that, and produce milk as a result.

I only think about this in the sense that the cows are not locked in fences. A really interesting old poem, The Mores- John Clare (http://orion.it.luc.edu/~sjones1/mores.htm) was about the way we fence in our farm animals. We never really had any problems with raising animals until farmers made their fences.

[Hate Is Art]

Partly it is because they are non-sapient

A pig has a higher IQ then a 3 year old sapient child, Dolphins are cleverer then most mentally disabled people. How about people in a persistent vegetative state?

[Tommy-K]

I do eat meat, but only if it&#39;s free range. Same with eggs. Not only does it mean the animals weren&#39;t treated cruelly prior to being slaughtered, they also taste a hell of a lot nicer&#33;

Being British, I try not to eat American meat. It&#39;s disgusting the way American companies genetically modify their meat and the health risks as a result of this genetic modification are really quite frightening.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 08:56 am
I do eat meat, but only if it&#39;s free range. Same with eggs. Not only does it mean the animals weren&#39;t treated cruelly prior to being slaughtered, they also taste a hell of a lot nicer&#33;

Being British, I try not to eat American meat. It&#39;s disgusting the way American companies genetically modify their meat and the health risks as a result of this genetic modification are really quite frightening.
If animal welfare matters to you that much just go veg.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 07, 2007 12:16 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 07, 2007 12:16 pm)
Tommy&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 08:56 am
I do eat meat, but only if it&#39;s free range. Same with eggs. Not only does it mean the animals weren&#39;t treated cruelly prior to being slaughtered, they also taste a hell of a lot nicer&#33;

Being British, I try not to eat American meat. It&#39;s disgusting the way American companies genetically modify their meat and the health risks as a result of this genetic modification are really quite frightening.
If animal welfare matters to you that much just go veg. [/b]
I&#39;ve thought about it, but I like meat too much&#33;

I also think that we are in such a position now that if everyone stopped eating meat the population of pigs and cows etc. would skyrocket to an unsustainable level.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Tommy&#045;K+April 07, 2007 12:52 pm--> (Tommy-K @ April 07, 2007 12:52 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 12:16 pm

Tommy&#045;[email protected] 07, 2007 08:56 am
I do eat meat, but only if it&#39;s free range. Same with eggs. Not only does it mean the animals weren&#39;t treated cruelly prior to being slaughtered, they also taste a hell of a lot nicer&#33;

Being British, I try not to eat American meat. It&#39;s disgusting the way American companies genetically modify their meat and the health risks as a result of this genetic modification are really quite frightening.
If animal welfare matters to you that much just go veg.
I&#39;ve thought about it, but I like meat too much&#33; [/b]
Fair enough.


I also think that we are in such a position now that if everyone stopped eating meat the population of pigs and cows etc. would skyrocket to an unsustainable level.
This is bollocks. Most pigs (of the four legged kind) and cows that are about today are only ther because we are using them as a food source. I suspect that if we all decided not to eat meat they would be systematically slaughtered because there is no point in keeping them around.

[bretty]

Jazzratt is right on the population point. The reason they are around is because we breed them industrially. They would die away fairly quickly without human intervention because we have bred and domesticated the same species over long long periods of human history.

[bretty]

Also to point something out to Tommy-K

I&#39;m pretty sure in a lot of places there is no standards or enforcement for the term &#39;free range&#39;. You should check out the enforcement and standards in your area and where you purchase it if your adamant about only buying free range. Just a warning and suggestion.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:31 pm
Jazzratt is right
HOLY SHIT&#33; :o

(sorry for spamming, but it was really shocking).


I&#39;m pretty sure in a lot of places there is no standards or enforcement for the term &#39;free range&#39;. You should check out the enforcement and standards in your area and where you purchase it if your adamant about only buying free range. Just a warning and suggestion.
Actually I&#39;d think most places are very stringent on this, as they are with the "Organic" label. It is very hard for Farmers to get certified as either and can often cause a large drop in income as they change certain aspects (that are not necessarily inorganic/cruel) of their farming method. This hurts a lot of farmers, especially smaller scale ones who tend to be fairly impoverished anyway.

[bretty]

Jazz:

Organic label is different somehow. Free range has very very very little standards and enforcement.

[Jazzratt]

Fair enough, I&#39;ve never asked anyone about the free range label or been told about it by anyone who might know. Do you happen to know where they are likely to be more stringent/lax on the matter?

[farleft]

I eat meat, chicken, pig & cow mainly though I have other things when I get the chance.

It&#39;s yummy.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 09:33 pm
Also to point something out to Tommy-K

I&#39;m pretty sure in a lot of places there is no standards or enforcement for the term &#39;free range&#39;. You should check out the enforcement and standards in your area and where you purchase it if your adamant about only buying free range. Just a warning and suggestion.
That&#39;s a good point, I didn&#39;t think of that. Thanks :)

I know in America the guidelines for labelling meat as &#39;organic&#39; are very lax, which is why I try to avoid American meat (that and the genetic engineering)

If you eat organic meat in America it&#39;s probably not organic at all.

[bretty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:13 am
Fair enough, I&#39;ve never asked anyone about the free range label or been told about it by anyone who might know. Do you happen to know where they are likely to be more stringent/lax on the matter?
I&#39;ll find out some shit for you.

[bombeverything]

I was vegetarian for 6 months, and vegan for a bit over a year but I now eat meat again. I don&#39;t have a problem with it. My main reason for going back was that I don&#39;t eat all that well as it is (am lazy), so decided I should eat what I can get.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 30, 2006 10:31 pm
I eat meat, and don&#39;t have any problems with doing so, although I do have issues with current farming practices.

I don&#39;t eat all that much meat anyway, because I often just prefer the taste of vegies (and hang out with quite a few vegetarians/vegans) but I should eat more roo because it&#39;s much more eco-friendly than lamb. Which sucks, because though roo tastes quite good, I <3 lamb.

Edit: Good idea with the new stickies btw. :)
Does &#39;roo&#39; mean kangaroo?&#33; :o

If so, I must say I had no idea you ate them in australia, or if I had I must have forgotten/constricted it somehow. If you do eat them, how do they taste? Can&#39;t *believe* I missed that when I was over there. We have those fellows in Zoos (where they are threated as human kings)&#33;

[Mujer Libre]

Yes, roo means kangaroo. It&#39;s available at most supermarkets and tastes kinda gamey, almost herby.

It&#39;s REALLY lean so you have to eat it medium at most, or slow cooked.

[apathy maybe]

I used to eat game wallaby a bit. The mince is about the same price as beef mince, and indistinguishable (I feed it to my GF once, and she didn&#39;t know until I told her, I also feed it to a couple of her friends, same deal). It is a lot less fatty then beef as well, which is good.

[ichneumon]

is roo more expensive than other kinds of meat? it is MUCH more eco-friendly

[Jitsu]

I am a vegetarian, though I also do a lot of strength training, so I am on a high protein vegetarian diet. Lots of tofu, beans, whole grains, nuts, and protein shakes. I can easily bench press 250 lbs, so I like to dispel the myth that vegetarians are weak. I dont eat eggs, and dairy is not a regular part of my diet.

I have to say though, that I have fewer issues with people who hunt from the wild compared to people who support factory farms. If you are going to eat meat, go free range. Its not only an ethical issue regarding animal suffering, but there is a major environmental component to it as well.

[bretty]

Jazzratt:

There has been alot of incidents like this one: Free Range egg scam (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1533795.ece)

You could call it an isolated incident but it shows the lack of enforcement etc in some places.


As far as being less strict on things like the hormone to keep cows impregnated to give milk.. it is banned in most of the famous rich developed countries like Canada, Japan, etc. but in the U.S. it is still used.

This is the type of thing that keeps me vegan, its so fucked up what they throw into milk and everything else.


There is a really good site I&#39;ve found with alot of information and it&#39;s not really pro-vegan(I&#39;m assuming from what I&#39;ve read so far plus they give failure stories etc.) .

I&#39;ll give you the website anyways to skim over and you can let me know what you think about it.

Beyond Vegetarian (http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml)

Anyways let me know what you think.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:34 pm
Jazzratt:

There has been alot of incidents like this one: Free Range egg scam (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1533795.ece)

You could call it an isolated incident but it shows the lack of enforcement etc in some places.
It&#39;s certainly interesting, although I&#39;m more concerned because it is cheating a lot of ordinary people out of their hard-earned money through false marketing.


As far as being less strict on things like the hormone to keep cows impregnated to give milk.. it is banned in most of the famous rich developed countries like Canada, Japan, etc. but in the U.S. it is still used.

This is the type of thing that keeps me vegan, its so fucked up what they throw into milk and everything else.


There is a really good site I&#39;ve found with alot of information and it&#39;s not really pro-vegan(I&#39;m assuming from what I&#39;ve read so far plus they give failure stories etc.) .

I&#39;ll give you the website anyways to skim over and you can let me know what you think about it.

Beyond Vegetarian (http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml)

Anyways let me know what you think.
Cow hormones: I assume that, at some time down the line, I have drunk milk from a behormoned cow. I do not appear to have suffered any ill effects from doing so therefore I don&#39;t mind.

The webiste: Looks interesting, although some of it looks a bit dodgy to me. I&#39;ll check it out more when I have the time.

[bretty]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 17, 2007 02:53 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 17, 2007 02:53 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 10:34 pm
Jazzratt:

There has been alot of incidents like this one: Free Range egg scam (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1533795.ece)

You could call it an isolated incident but it shows the lack of enforcement etc in some places.
It&#39;s certainly interesting, although I&#39;m more concerned because it is cheating a lot of ordinary people out of their hard-earned money through false marketing.


As far as being less strict on things like the hormone to keep cows impregnated to give milk.. it is banned in most of the famous rich developed countries like Canada, Japan, etc. but in the U.S. it is still used.

This is the type of thing that keeps me vegan, its so fucked up what they throw into milk and everything else.


There is a really good site I&#39;ve found with alot of information and it&#39;s not really pro-vegan(I&#39;m assuming from what I&#39;ve read so far plus they give failure stories etc.) .

I&#39;ll give you the website anyways to skim over and you can let me know what you think about it.

Beyond Vegetarian (http://www.beyondveg.com/index.shtml)

Anyways let me know what you think.
Cow hormones: I assume that, at some time down the line, I have drunk milk from a behormoned cow. I do not appear to have suffered any ill effects from doing so therefore I don&#39;t mind.

The webiste: Looks interesting, although some of it looks a bit dodgy to me. I&#39;ll check it out more when I have the time. [/b]
The cow hormones in hindsight aren&#39;t going to harm you necessarily. For some it may, but in the long run it has been linked to a lot of health problems.

[Vallegrande]

Free-range and Organic are both misleading. Look for grass-fed beef. Best bet is to go straight to a real farmer doing things the traditional way. You will know the difference.

[Vallegrande]

All animals produce hormones, these are ok. It is the injected hormones that are not.

On another note, if we did stop eating the cows and chickens why would they still be useless? They still nourish the ground they are on.
Besides it is the same for plants, we domesticated them and if we abandoned them they would die as well.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:59 am
Free-range and Organic are both misleading. Look for grass-fed beef. Best bet is to go straight to a real farmer doing things the traditional way. You will know the difference.
Bollocks you will. Unless it&#39;s rancid most beef from the same part of a cow tastes fairly similar.


On another note, if we did stop eating the cows and chickens why would they still be useless? They still nourish the ground they are on.
We can automate that process.

[Vallegrande]

What about all that one inch topsoil grass lol? We really cant do much with that type of dustbowl environment.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:30 pm
What about all that one inch topsoil grass lol? We really cant do much with that type of dustbowl environment.
Nor could cows.

[Cult of Reason]

Meat-eater here.

Assuming the quality of food is unaffected, I support the use of sow-stalls, farrowing-pens, and battery egg farming.

I have also had foie gras and white veal both once, and it is definitely worth it. :wub:

That is, I am another anthropocentrist.

[apathy maybe]

I don&#39;t know about the other stuff, but battery eggs are no where near as good as decent free range eggs.

Compare the yolk of an egg from a well cared for (and even loved&#33;) chook compared to an egg from a battery caged hen.

Compare the taste. The free range well cared for animals give better tasting, brighter yolks then the battery caged ones.