Discussion in 'General' started by Margo Baggins, 11 Aug 2011.
We should treat all animals with respect whether we eat them or not.
It's the whole not wiping out a species not just so future generations can witness their existence, but also how hitleresque it would be.
If we're going to be eating animals, not just for our nourishment but also for our enjoyment, the least we can do is treat them with some respect whilst they are alive. Let them enjoy their life, let them breed not just for human benefit, but I'm pretty sure they enjoy that too (even guy's like the bee's enjoy it before it's all over) and if we're going to kill them for our benefit, we can at least do it in the least painful way possible.
Yes, and I've pointed out that we all cause unnecessary suffering. If your argument is going to rest on things which cause unnecessary suffering being impermissible then you have a problem, because we all do things which cause unnecessary suffering.
Are not the main problem, or are not a problem at all? Because the above two things are identical from a moral perspective, it's just one is couched in nice friendly huggable words and the other is couched in evil corporate hitler-devil words.
Then sell your damn computer and feed some dying kids! Sell it all. Sell everything you have. You prioritise your possessions over the lives of dying children. Right now, as we speak, you're continuing to make the choice to keep your computer and your possessions, and let those kids in Africa die.
Good attitude to take.
It aptly describes most human beings and the way they conduct themselves here. Today there are more and more people however, who are beginning to compromise less, as a result they suffer from it. Because in this world there is no room (YET) for people who act more on morals... and less on compromise.
Life here is more geared towards compromise than morals, this allows for morals to either take a second place, or to be right out overridden. The current system and the mindset it creates, leaves plenty of room for - why not! Room for conflicts within the individual itself.
Added: Unnecessary suffering implies there's necessary suffering. There's no such thing.
It will never happen over night, the demand would slowly get lower and lower, minizing the last mass slaughter.
The animals can survive in the wild, farmers loose a small number of sheep for example every year, and become wild and survive for years. (a little family of them raided my TENT!!! GITS! )
Cows.. don't see any reason they need humans.. don't say to be milked... please, that would be silly.
Pigs are scavengers by nature and very good at it, the only problem i can see with them at first is that they grow faster than normal to get more meat out of them faster, which takes it tole on there legs, but years to come will be naturally bred out of them, weak genes dont last.
Making sure the numbers don't go out of control... no need for culling, the number of natural predictors (Fox's/Scottish wolf's?/Birds of pray/ferrets ect) will rise to match the rise in there food. Natural equilibrium will once again take hold.
And so on so on...
I put it to you about the land not suitable for veg... what do you think the animals eat on there?
But say we still couldnt grow on there, we could have so much land open to use, it would be more than we needed. so even if there is the odd farm that cannot grow veg, there are loads and loads that can.. more than we need now.
"By products of animal farming such as wool, leather, milk, cheese"
There are already alternatives and/or imitations, i use them everyday.
Have you been the Highlands? The only thing that grows on higher levels is grass and not the kind that humans can digest in fact the only thing that comfortably lives up there is sheep and rabbits. Most of Scotland north of the central belt is unsuitable for anything but livestock the land is of too poor quality to grow food crops and parts where you could grow grain crops the field sizes are generally unsuited to modern intensive farming methods, too steep for tractors, too small, too steep and too inaccessible for combine harvesters.
We used to have seasonal diets based on what was grown with in a few miles. Personally I couldn't live on Oats, radish and potatoes, I presume you only eat locally sourced foods?
There is no way on this green earth humanity should be forced into veganism.
Every vegetarian I know has to pay attention to what they eat so they don't end up losing certain proteins and vitamins that're in meat, and the vegans I know all take supplements to replace what they don't get from meat.
Frankly, the human body is designed from the ground up to be an omnivore.
And on a personal level, I love meat. It is the best aspect of any meal it's included in, and if anyone tried to force me to be a vegetarian or vegan, I would need some strong convincing not to beat them to death for their unwanted, ill advised, intrusion into my life.
In my opinion, Vegetarianism/veganism is just people being fussy under the guise of "Saving helpless animals" or whatever pointless fluff they want to spin it as. If, hundreds of years ago, someone said "I will only eat vegetables", chances are they'd just have become malnourished and died. It's only because of the cuthroat capitalist culture we have now that people choose to be vegetarian and (Somehow) survive long enough to bug me with their "Death free life style" (I have punched people for suggesting that vegetarianism is death free. That living plant in your sandwich is alive too, you know).
If anything, the human race needs to learn how to do meat eating in moderation, rather than the excess we partake in now, not cut it out completely.
like i said, the areas we cannot use practically wouldn't really matter because of the massive amounts of land globally that would become available, more than what we would need even in the older populated state we are in.
Im in presses of tiring to find the info on this.. was a while ago from when i read it my self.
As an aside, I find it hilariously ironic that you claim to dislike capitalism, yet have a massive endorsement of the entire capitalist culture in your signature.
I never said that.
And humans are still not designed to eat meat. why do you think you have to cook it before eating it? if you dont you will get ill... does not sound very natural to me.
Also your stomach is long, like a herbivore as it takes longer to digest vegetation than meat, carnivores have short a stomach so that the meat is passed though faster and less time for it to go bad while inside them... other wise they will get food poisoning... just like when meat isnt cooked properly on a BBQ or a takeaway.
Your canine teeth are canine only by name, the teeth we have can be compared to alot of herbivores.
And how do you intend to move these produce around the world? Sure we could potentially free up space around the world but how are you going to get it to the markets? Sailing ship? Or is it ok for us to burn oil and (potentially) contribute to climate change?
So save the sheep kill the polar bears....
I would put it all in the bin if it meant to end of capitalism. I said from the beginning that i disliked it, but do not take a big active role in anti-capitalism.. more of a ideologist.
Shame all those other beings you're happy to have killed for pleasure don't have the option of beating you to death for your unwanted intrusion into their lives, no?
True, hundreds of years ago it may have been a necessary factor in our survival, and I've no problem with the idea that if our continuation as a human race suddenly depended on us having to fight other animals then it would be a justifiable means of ensuring our existance; but that simply isn't the case any more and I've started to eat much better and enjoy food more since becoming a vegetarian than 12 months ago.
Right, but plants don't have nervous systems or any comprehension of life or survival, it's just chemical reactions that keep it alive (determinists need not apply); but I guess someone who resorts to punching people to get his point across wouldn't necessarily be bothered by facts now would they?
Maybe we could kill two birds with one stone, by eating the rioters, using their blood and bones in the garden, and make shoes from the leather?
Alot of information for people to have a poke though here as well
[despite the name of the site, it is not illegal to use the site]
Humans taste almost the same as pigs so im told
We rename animals when there turned into food to help desensitize the young.. what shall we call the rioters?
Dont tell that to the plant liberation front!! D:
Or we could use their bones to make marshmallows which are cooked over the embers of the buildings they burnt down? If anything we'd finally get to find out what irony actually tastes like
In fact it's wheat and other cereals we are not designed to eat, which is why so many humans develop problems ingesting cereals, from minor intollerance reactions to the extreme example of coeliac sufferers.
Meat could be eaten raw, and some is, if the animals were not fed on feed containing other animal waste products which can carry disease and is stored in certain organs of the animals. A bigger risk to health when eating meat is eating ground meat because it mixes up all kinds of off-cuts and spreads bacteria throughout the product, which often is not properly cooked through.
When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.
Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws
Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits
Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)
Clearly if humans were meant to eat meat we wouldn't have so many crucial ingestive/digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores.
Many people ask me, "If we weren't supposed to eat meat than why do we?". It is because we are conditioned to eat meat. Also, the ADA (American Dietetic Association) tells us that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on a vegetarian or Lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.
A popular statement that meat eaters say is; "In the wild, animals kill other animals for food. It's nature." First of all, we are not in the wild. Secondly, we can easily live without eating meat and killing, not to mention we'd be healthier. And finally, as I have already shown, we weren't meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.
The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this. All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or bloody meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and bloody. The thought of eating such meat makes one’s stomach turn. This is my point on how we as humans are conditioned to believe that animal flesh is good for us and that we were meant to consume it for survival and health purposes. If we are true carnivores or omnivores, cooking our meat and seasoning it with salt, ketchup, or tabasco sauce would disguise and we as humans would refuse to eat our meat in this form.
[Source: http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm ]
additional info: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
Cooking meat makes it more nutritious and easier for us to digest. Over time our stomachs have evolved to take advantage of this and in the process we have lost the enzymes needed to digest raw meat. Its similar to how westerners can process alcohol better than people from the far east as we used alcohol to sterilise water supplies when they used tea.
Depends entirely on the breed. The sheep reared on hill farms in the UK are tough as they need to be able to survive outside all year round. Some of our traditional breed cattle are the same, they are adapted to our climate. Unfortunately a lot of the breeds are not and could not survive with out us providing shelter for them. Fresian cows have been bred to convert food into milk, that's why they are so skinny. With out intervention disease would also be a issue and where will all these animals live if we need all the land for farming? The example of Shrek the famous New Zealand sheep shows what happens when a domesticated breed enters the wild.
Same as above. Our native old breeds could survive in the wild, the rest would not with out shelter. Pigs are also incredibly destructive and highly intelligent so would be destroying crops and gardens.
Nonsense. We already have to cull the Red dear population as there is no predators to control the population and the land can not support their numbers. Now you want to add cattle, pigs and sheep into the mix.
Steve said it all perfectly but your now advocating growing food elsewhere in the world and transporting it here at vast environmental impact. We should be concentrating on eating locally and seasonal where we can. Plus with out animals you loose a valuable source of fertiliser.
Which is fine in small numbers but scale that up to a global population and is it sustainable?
edit to include your last post.
Why do our closest evolutionary cousins also hunt and eat meat? I doubt its conditioning. My cat eats cooked meat all the time. The reason bears and lions don't eat cooked meat is because they don't know how to cook it.
Separate names with a comma.