Wow, how are the people loser's. Because they care about something other than their own pathetic lives. I bet you also view the kids who participate in the Special Olympics as losers to, cause they can't run as fast as Michael Johnson. There is a special place for you, and that is in the depths of hell.
It is interesting to read your posts, Batman (as always) - I do not meat, and you consistently nail exactly why and how my decision making process works to a T. BUT, I tend not advocate it to others though, more because I think it is hard to "sell" the 'eating meat is wrong' argument. The 'cruelty' arguement to me is almost indefensible. My wife and I are totally on your train lifestyle wise, but privately. I never evangleize it. I guess I feel like I argue this more moderately than I live it, but more because I think it is a more effective argument than my personal convictions; essentially, that eating meat when you do not need to is not something i feel comfortable with at all. The way you argue this sorta makes me feel like a p***** vegetarian, is what I am trying to say. Nicely done.
If you're talking about deer or something, there's a conversation to be had. If you're talking about the animals that comprise 99%+ of American diets, there isn't. We just really don't have a problem with wild cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs or fish. And if we had one tomorrow, it would be because we bred them. Wanna fix that? Castrate the ones that are alive. Problem solved. But you don't really want to solve that particular problem. You just don't wish to stop eating animals. p.s. All humans die, too. And in a lot of situations, the human population could stand controlling as well. Does that make it okay for me to cook you and eat you?
He was exaggerating a bit, as you are now. C'mon. Most Liberals on this board feel that PETA is over the top.
Same to you, FanClub. I'm the same way you are. I don't evangelize either. Well, not anymore anyway. The only exception I make is when a meat eater comes at me with a morally superior argument, particularly one regarding the sanctity of life (giddy knows what I'm saying) and I feel compelled to point out some measure of hypocrisy. But I've given up trying to change anyone's mind about it. It is what it is. It will change, but it won't be because I changed it. I'm content for now just to not participate in the torturing, murdering, chewing up, swallowing and ****ting of dead bodies.
I personally don't have a problem with eating any kind of meat, but society does. I'm in full agreement with the short story "A Modest Proposal." Always have been. Whether you realize it or not, you just validated my point. We would have to control the populations of the wild cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, and fish. In fact that is what we have been doing. IMO, you might as well eat them when they die. I'm all for them being treated humanely before they die, however.
Say whaaat? We've been breeding and raising them. We've been making them. If we stopped, there wouldn't be enormous populations to control. You make my head hurt.
Hypocritical. Even the microbes etc in water and on vegetables? We are all "guilty" to a degree. Please don't act so superior. You just aren't.
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length (assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to support the idea that we are omnivores. Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again. Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines, where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a process of fermentation--bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung. The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions. Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein, but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild, much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging for snacks just to keep their strength up. So make no mistake: we were born to eat meat. That's not to say you have to. There's no question that strictly from a health standpoint we'd all be a lot better off eating less meat (red meat especially) and more fruits and vegetables. But vegetarians aren't going to advance their cause by making ridiculous claims. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_087.html Can we get an answer that's not from veghead.com? another more scientific analysis: Are humans vegetarians or omnivores? Those terms are not strict biological designations, and so the question needs to be rephrased a bit before it can be answered. The confusion stems from the use of the word "carnivore" to mean "meat eater" - instead the word carnivorous should be used. To be biologically strict here, a carnivore is an order of mammal (recognized by the presence of the carnassial tooth, among other things) that includes cats (felids), dogs (canids), bears (ursids), and a number of other mammalian families. Carnivores are not strictly meat eaters - most will eat some type of plants as a part (sometimes even the main part) of their diet. The term "vegetarian" is strictly a human construct. Vegetarians shun animal products for food, usually for religious or ethical reasons. Even still, there are degrees of vegetarian. Some vegetarians will never consciously eat any food that comes from an animal. Other will consume dairy products (an animal food even though it isn't meat). Others will allow themselves to eat eggs (the pre-chicken, so to speak), or fish. Vegetarianism is more of a dietary philosophy then an ecological food preference, so it's hard to speak of it in biological terms. Biologists rarely (never in my experience) categorize non-carnivorous animals into one "plant eating" group. That is because different dietary specializations are required to eat different types of plants. Thus, you will hear of herbivores (specialized to eat shoots and growing tips), folivores (specialized to eat leaves) and frugivores (specialized to eat fruit) among other adaptations. Even within these broad groupings there are further specializations, such as grazers that eat grass and browsers that eat shrubs (both are types of herbivore). And even among the "plant eating" animals there is no animal that I am aware of that will not consume some type of animal protein when given the opportunity. An omnivore is an animal that will draw its food from all aspects of the ecosystem (plants, animals - whatever). As I've already pointed out, you could claim that nearly every animal is omnivorous since a purely meat eater or purely plant eater is very rare. Nonetheless, you can look at the animal's anatomy to look at how they are adapted to process food. First you can look at the teeth. Molars are broad flat teeth that are useful in grinding up tough fibrous material - such as plants. Animals that are primarily plant eaters have very large molars with six pairs (three uppers and three lowers) on each side. Animals that do not specialize in eating plants tend to have a reduced number of molars. Humans are equipped with six pairs of molars. Although they are not very large, this would suggest that humans have the ability to process fibrous plant food. Premolars (bicuspids) are the slicing teeth. Mammals originally had eight pairs of premolars, although most mammals alive today have fewer. Premolars are the primary teeth used by meat eating specialists, and are frequently missing in animals that specialize in plant foods. Humans have four pairs of premolars, which suggests that humans have the ability to process animal food. Incisors are grasping teeth, that change shape depending upon how they are used. The broad flat surfaces of human incisors is most associated with animals that specialize in eating fruit. So, if we just look at our teeth - humans are clearly built to be omnivorous. But, of course there is more data. We can look at how nutrients are processes and absorbed in the body. Meat and fruit are high quality foods that are not difficult to assimilate. Animals that specialize in these types of food tend to have a short digestive tract, with a very short large intestine. Plant foods can be nutritious, but take longer to absorb. Therefore, animals that specialize in plant eating tend to have long and elaborate digestive tracts. Humans are clearly intermediate here. We have a long large intestine (more common in plant eaters), but we lack the elaborations that would allow us to digest and assimilate nutrients from high fiber plant foods (such as grass or leaves). So, again, the human digestive tract can be used to argue that we are omnivorous. Finally, you need to look at nutritional requirements. There are some B-complex vitamins that are available only by eating other animals. The human body requires this nutrient, but does not synthesize it the way some other animals do. Therefore, if humans truly ate no animal foods, and had no artificial vitamin supplements, they would sicken and die. In nature, there are no true "human vegetarians." Humans are omnivores. The order of mammals that includes humans (the primates) are all omnivores. To be sure, the modern American diet includes a lot more meat than is healthy. And the human animal can be very healthy by being a lot more vegetarian. But to never eat meat is both unnatural and unhealthy. Finally, you ask about my credentials to answer this question. Well, I am employed as an anatomy professor (and am therefore a specialist in human anatomy). I teach at a college that specializes in training health care workers (so I am familiar with issues of human health an nutrition). Finally, I earned by Ph.D. in Physical Anthropology (which sort of makes me an expert in how humans adapt both biologically and culturally to the environment). Some References relevant to this questions: Harding, RSO & Teleki, G (1981) Omnivorous Primates. Columbia University Press: New York. Romer, AS & Parsons, TS (1986) The Vertebrate Body. Saunders College Publishing: New York Oxnard, C. (1987) Fossils, Teeth and Sex. University of Washington Press: Seattle http://128.252.223.112/posts/archives/may2000/959372412.Ot.r.html
Whatever, dude. I said before I don't lead a cruelty-free lifestyle -- that I just try to do what I can. I consider meat to be murder. I consider the way meat is raised to be torture. Sorry. I do. That has nothing to do with me feeling superior. I don't.
I am in that liberal category, but I don't begrudge Peta members their sincere views and motivation...
Just my $.02 without reading this whole thing... 1. I'm a vegetarian who does eat dairy products. 2. I am not a member of nor a supporter of PETA. 3. I do occassionally buy leather products, but the total number of leather items in my home that I have outright purchased is very small. I try to avoid it wherever possible, but I'm not on the extreme end. 4. If people choose to eat meat or not eat meat, that is his/her preference. I'm not going to try and alter your opinion any more than I would want you to try and alter mine. 5. We are ALL hypocrites about things. There is no getting around this. Whether the folks at PETA are hypocrites or not makes little difference. Christians sin...many of them purposefully and with knowledge. That makes them hypocrites. It doesn't mean they cannot advocate for their position. The nature of being human is to be contradictory. -- I personally don't have a problem with this display, but I see why others do. I just think PETA makes it tougher for those of us who support meaningful discussion of the ethical treatment of animals. That's a shame because it is a worthwhile discussion and one that could be done without rhetoric and hyperbole.
Plants develop defense mechanisms like poisons and thorns. For what reason would they do this other than to preserve their own life? And if plants want to live, aren't you being hypocritical to say that it's okay to eat plants, but not animals? And, you say it's okay to eat plants because they can't feel pain. Well, then, by your standards, it's okay to kill an animal painlessly and eat it then, right?...... or is it time for you guys to change your tune and think up some new arguments?
I happend to read the same article Bullard4life posted a little earlier. For the sake of argument, here's the summary of the findings: Facial Muscles Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape Herbivore: Well-developed Omnivore: Reduced Human: Well-developed Jaw Type Carnivore: Angle not expanded Herbivore: Expanded angle Omnivore: Angle not expanded Human: Expanded angle Jaw Joint Location Carnivore: On same plane as molar teeth Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars Omnivore: On same plane as molar teeth Human: Above the plane of the molars Jaw Motion Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back Omnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back Major Jaw Muscles Carnivore: Temporalis Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids Omnivore: Temporalis Human: Masseter and pterygoids Mouth Opening vs. Head Size Carnivore: Large Herbivore: Small Omnivore: Large Human: Small Teeth (Incisors) Carnivore: Short and pointed Herbivore: Broad, flattened and spade shaped Omnivore: Short and pointed Human: Broad, flattened and spade shaped Teeth (Canines) Carnivore: Long, sharp and curved Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none Omnivore: Long, sharp and curved Human: Short and blunted Teeth (Molars) Carnivore: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface Omnivore: Sharp blades and/or flattened Human: Flattened with nodular cusps Chewing Carnivore: None; swallows food whole Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary Omnivore: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing Human: Extensive chewing necessary Saliva Carnivore: No digestive enzymes Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes Omnivore: No digestive enzymes Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes Stomach Type Carnivore: Simple Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers Omnivore: Simple Human: Simple Stomach Acidity Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach Herbivore: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach Omnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach Human: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach Stomach Capacity Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract Omnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract Human: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract Length of Small Intestine Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length Human: 10 to 11 times body length Colon Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated Omnivore: Simple, short and smooth Human: Long, sacculated Liver Carnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A Herbivore: Cannot detoxify vitamin A Omnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A Kidney Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine Omnivore: Extremely concentrated urine Human: Moderately concentrated urine Nails Carnivore: Sharp claws Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves Omnivore: Sharp claws Human: Flattened nails
I guess it's a more widened scope of "species-ism" that includes animals with a functioning brain or are in our evolutionary ladder. Most would probably have no hesitation squishing a cockroach or spraying an ant pile. It's okay to eat plants because it's the most basic form of food that allows us a healthy lifestyle. When you're an adult, meat isn't necessary to live even without the aid of suppliments. Plus artificial vitamins aren't considered as beneficial as the natural stuff. Consider as a society we treat our cats and dogs as genuine familiy members. Asians in general get a lot of flak for eating them. Some French dishes have been known to include horses, and a pig is one of the more intelligent livestock around. In fact, animal researchers have called the pig the horizontal man for its striking physiological similarities with humans. These considerations are all thrown away when it comes to a luxury in taste. As an adult, eating meat is a selfish luxury. I'm weak and selfish....
I won't go around in circles and argue about eating plants and the like, I'll just say that I tend to hold the middle ground in my beliefs, kind of along the lines of Chucky Brown's description of the environment in his dad's days. I think that animals absolutely feel pain when we ruthlessly murder them through various tactics. To argue otherwise is idiotic. However I also feel its immoral to pump them full of hormones not only to the pain they endure but that our health is effected eventually. I feel that some greater being put the animals on this earth for our sustenance and it is up to us as humans to responsibly approach this and value the individual life within each animal we kill. I know for a fact that the Islamic religion outlaws the killing of any animal unless it is done via a swift cut at the jugular vein. A brief prayer of gratefulness is required and even so much as using a dull knife is strictly forbidden. This method of killing fascinates me because it attempts to hold responsbility for the act - awareness that the animal is in pain and an attempt to lessen this and take value of what is being done. Take only what is needed by the individual killing. Not a mass slaughter of deer by way of gunshot. I understand how some would be offended by PETA's comparison as it may be seen as diminishing the suffering of blacks and jews. i think however, as was pointed out earlier, was that I think the intent was to display that what is seen as tolerable by our present generation may be viewed as horrific later on. we can go round and round calling each other hypocrites. i think however the root issue is through which perspective you view the world's purpose: by this, i mean, was this earth created for Mankind with all other creatures put on earth revolving around us? or are we all as living beings equally entitled to this earth? how you answer this question will lead to your beliefs on this animal rights dilemma. either way, there should be some grey line. you can eat meat, but there is no justification for some of the treatment that is going on today. P.S: I forget who started the thread, but kudos to the thread starter. i got kind of tired of debating our intentions in iraq.
i was told by a friend who went to teach English in South Korea....that their cooking recipe for Dog is: 1) Tie it up to a tree trunk hanging head down 2) Beat the Sh*t out of it with a big stick 3) Then burn it alive 4) all this to get its adrenaline running 5) then finally cook it talk about cruelty to animals.... I apologize if this offends anyone....but its true….PETA should be more concerned with acts like these....
