a. sounds dismissive b & C. sounds like you are using the argument you say we are using. human Life > animal Life. .. you are saying animal Life > Plant Life . . where is the difference d: so you should just eat the bare minimum to survive? Rocket River
Well I did find some other sites which provide evidences that claim otherwise. Something was not right though, in one of the articles you posted, hayes. According to wikipedia, frugivores and folivores are sub-groups under herbivores. The definition of herbivores by Dr. Thomas Greiner is not strictly correct.
I did some searches but all those concluding the same were from similar organizations, mainly those that were proponents of vegetarianism rather than scholarly journals. If you got 'em then post 'em or at least abstracts. Or wikipedia is incorrect?
My final thought. Eating meat is not always wrong and not eating meat is not always right.(some meat eaters are more enlightened than vegetarians) Blanket statements about wrong or right, or "murder" are just ignorant. Personally, I'll trust American Indians etc. over PETA.
Newer tooth wear studies conclude we're omnivoures (if I'm using that correctly as in eat both animal and vegetable)... Sillen A (1992) "Strontium-calcium ratios (Sr/Ca) of Australopithecus robustus and associated fauna from Swartkrans." Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 23, pp. 495-516. Sillen A, Hall G, Armstrong R (1995) "Strontium calcium (Sr/Ca) ratios and strontium isotopic ratios (87 Sr/ 86 Sr) of Australopithecus robustus and Homo sp. from Swartkrans." Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 28, pp. 277-285. Outdated toothwear studies often cited. As for Australopithecus, the highly publicized tooth-wear studies cited in fruitarian/vegetarian lore are dated. (See related discussion in Part 1 of the Paleolithic Diet vs. Vegetarianism series.) Newer isotope studies of Australopithecus fossils indicate an omnivorous diet: Sillen [1992] analyzed the strontium/calcium (Sr/Ca) ratios in Australopithecus fossils, and concluded (p. 495): When specimens of the fossil Australopithecus robustus were examined, Sr/Ca values were inconsistent with that of a root, rhizome or seed-eating herbivore, suggesting that the diet of this species was more diverse than previously believed, and almost certainly included the consumption of animal foods. The results of Sillen [1992] were confirmed in a separate study, using stable carbon isotopic analysis; see Lee-Thorp et al. [1994] for details. Also see Sillen et al. [1995] for a followup to Sillen [1992].
Since we have derailed the blantant and disrespect Peta has for human suffering the Obviously don't give a d*mn about me and mine so they can all goto h*ll Their displays go along way to supporting the ideal that minorities are nothing but animals anyway . . . whether that is what they meant or not. . that is what it is saying ___________________________________ So Humans = Animals > Plants, insects, microbs This being the case Animals eat other Animals. . .so why should humans not eat animals? Because we have a choice? So, the ability to reason puts us at a higher level? If no . .then why should we not eat animals. . . animals eat animals If yes . . then why does that not elevate human life above animal life? Death is Death Someone asked if I accepted what a slaughterhouse is Search for my Thread on the PROCESS Of things I have witnessed Slaughter and even participate in them on the Farm It is the whole CIRCLE OF LIFE thing I don't beleive animals should live in Captivity all their like The chickens were free roaming and we had to catch them I don't beleive in animal Cruely but I think ARROGANCE is thinking we are ABOVE the Circle just as our dead bodies will feed the worms. . the worms will feed the chicken and the plants We shall feed upon the chicken and plants THE CIRCLE Rocket River
Well, as far as evolution goes, cockroaches have been around a LOT longer than we have, and they are much better survivors than we are. They have a functioning brain and a nervous system which, in many ways, functions better than ours does. That's not what Bullard4Life said. His argument was that plants don't feel pain. I'd like to hear other vegetarians respond to my post. And, by the way... Jesus ate fish. And God likes the smell of barbeque beef.
So, in your opinion, we're forcing these animals to procreate? Give me a break. Buffaloes were, at one time, an endangered species. We let them roam freely in some of our preserves. Then the population increased to the point where they were not only thriving, but they had to be controlled once again. If all the wild cows, turkeys, chickens, etc. were allowed to roam freely, they would become a nuissance. If we did a mass-killing of our "beef" cows, and let a few back into the wild, they'd still become a nuissance, eventually.
One other thought: If you think eating eggs means you are eating chicken abortions, you are a moron. (nobody here has said that, thankfully.)
No, you're not eating an abortion. You're aborting a chicken as you eat it. I think we can all agree on this: animals should not suffer needlessy. Even if I have to pay a couple of extra bucks for my chicken or cow to be killed humanely, then I will pay it.
Wrong. The eggs you eat from the grocery store are unfertilized eggs, and the chickens that lay them are never exposed to a male.
Exactly. What you're technically eating is a chicken period. (There has to be a better way to say that.)
Nah. But here's a weird morsel of information: a female turkey can lay a fertilized egg that hatches into a baby turkey - all without ever having sex with a male. There are some lizards that can do this, too. It's called parthenogenesis.
A woman's period primarily consists of the inner wall of the uterus. The woman's egg either dissolves or is absorbed into her body. The chicken squats out her unfertilized egg. The chicken doesn't drop any uterus tissue in the process. Although, occasionally, a chicken may encounter some bleeding while her egg is being generated. This results in a red spot appearing inside the egg. These eggs are usually filtered out at the farm, but occasionally make their way to the grocery store. It's not dangerous to eat 'em, but many people are grossed out by it. It's also customary in some cultures to eat a woman's placenta after she gives birth, but I think that's an entirely different discussion.
Actually, I followed the link to its homepage and found wealth of information there. Being a vegetarian and a former vegan himself, the guy has done some serious research. Should be an excellent read (lot of time required though) for everyone who's interested in this topic. For that, I say good job hayes!
I enjoy watching wnes and hayes try to box in humans as if every organism fits neatly in a category. Truth of the matter is, humans eat both meat and plants, but mainly plants. We have many organs geared toward eating plants and fruits, and also some for meat. However, we are not that well equiped to eat meat. If you've ever eaten a 32 oz. steak, you should know. We can handle eating a lot of plants. Our diet should consist mainly of plants with some meat. Instead, nowadays, our meals consist of meat with some veggies.
Correct, but that is mainly the difference between birds and mammals, rather than differences in reproduction.
