Let's Go Vegetarian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radha Krsna

George Bernard Shaw wrote a song for peace:
We are the living graves of the animals were killed, slaughtered to satisfy our lust mouth ...

---

Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skib

Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above. :confused:

---

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

---

Pip I've agreed with everything you've said so far. You speak uncommon common sense and I admire your tenacity in the face of the replies you have received. Just thought you might appreciate some support.:thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Alcohol is a poison... didn't you know?

---

No it isn't. You may as well say salt is a poison. Too much of it will kill you. In sufficient doses cyanide, ricin & radioactive plutonium is a poison, although I believe arsenic in small doses is actually a tonic. In fact, according to modern medical research, small doses of alcohol are good for you. So is a *bacon sandwich. :thumbs_up


*Oh, I forgot, especially with HP Sauce!

Quote:

---

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

---

+1. For a good read on the American food industry, check out The Omnivore's Dilemma or In Defense of Food, both by Michael Pollan. I try to buy local/free range/etc., but it's hard since 90% of the time I'm eating in the dining hall:sick:.
I feel like Americans are going to start seeing more serious health effects from our eating habits, in particular due to the industries where we get our food (both meat and otherwise).

I'm a vegetarian, have been for 8 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

---

Very well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skib

Commercial feed lots/inefficient meat production aside, is this also to imply that those who hunt to make up for what they cannot afford are wrong to provide for themselves and their families? Also, I didn't see any pictures of cows above. :confused:

---

But there is one in his avatar. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Then again you could be feeding those people with crops grown on the land allotted to growing feed for livestock. Cows are yummy and all, but that cow easily eats the equivalent of several meals for a human being every day of its brief life. I don't know what the currently accepted ratios are, but cows are one of the least efficient ways of producing food.

---

I've heard this argument a lot, and for several reasons, I'm not buying it. Yes, livestock do take up a lot of room. But saying that all that space could be used for crops which would feed just as many people is not necessarily correct- just because land is suitable for grazing does not mean that it is suitable for growing crops. The fact that cows eat the equivalent of several human meals is also not applicable here: you could say that our pets (say, riding horses for example) are also eating foods that could be consumed by humans/ grazing on land on which crops might be grown. Should we also stop keeping animals recreationally?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radha Krsna

Only quote ...

Harvey Diamond: Enter an apple, a rabbit and a baby into the bassinet. If the baby is eating the rabbit, then playing with the apple, then I'll buy you a new car ...

---

Well obviously the baby wouldn't want to eat it raw :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

---

What is it specifically about industrial farms that you're against? I don't mean to imply that there are no problems, just that everyone says "Don't you see what's happening!?" when most don't actually know how those farms are run. Just looking for specific examples to carry on the discussion :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

No it isn't. You may as well say salt is a poison. Too much of it will kill you. So is a *bacon sandwich. :thumbs_up

---

Well put :D To say that something is a poison because it is capable of causing damage is wrong. Alcohol is just a chemical compound, same as the vitamins we get from our precious vegetables. If you want to look at it that way, a number of vitamins can be poisons too- once they reach toxic levels in the body, trouble ensues. Though this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I'm glad the guys begging for money on the access roads near me can get a $1 double-cheese burger. But those people who have a bit more money, I think should consider whether it might be better for their meat to be expensive. Why not enjoy something (meat, even) that isn't the product of torture and abuse rather than turning a blind eye to the horrible practices. I like the one meat meal a day idea, too. Just grabbing cheap meat at the grocery store is understandable, but there is insanity going on to make it possible, a bunch of corporate-driven bottom-line logic.

I really think a lot of people aren't aware of what goes on with these animals, there's such a disconnect. Of course people are gonna get upset if they're accused of being unkind to animals--they are only eating--but I think it is wrong to suggest nothing can be done about the problem.

It isn't a pleasant discussion, though, and I pretty much never bring it up outside of a thread specifically about it in an online forum. I certainly wouldn't shake up a meal with other people over it. But if someone is reading this thread, and they feel angry at me or whatever, sorry about that, and of course do whatever. But saying nothing can be done, as if that's the big winning justification to the issue, might actually have an effect on some people reading it.

---

I agree with you Billl, and I have the same experience. I have been veggie since 1990, (though you wouldn't guess to look at me).

I decided ages ago not to raise the issue with the people I work with etc. It makes those around you feel defensive. Plus I don't think soap box vegetarianism has any effect but to harden attitude and achieves nothing.

With this issue, it is hard not to sound pompous or flippant, but I would like to say that as a former meat eater, I did work in a slaughterhouse, (just weighing, not killing). At the time I was able to justify it - I had been a meat eater all my life. I was prepared to go along with the inevitable cruelty. It seemed the way of the world. How many meat eaters would do that though?

I did feel sad for the animals when I would go down to the pens at night for whatever, and see the ones in there waiting for the morning. I'm not saying that they knew anything about what was going to happen to them, they were scared in an unfamiliar environment.

Later, I made a moral decision about being a veggie. I would be wary of basing a moral decision like eating meat on the issue of taste. It is not a good grounding.

I will add that The Comedian's comment seems a sensible compromise. Leaving health aside, there are issues with the production of meat v the production of crops.

There - I've gone and been all pompous. I told you it was difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I agree with you Billl, and I have the same experience. I have been veggie since 1990, (though you wouldn't guess to look at me).

I decided ages ago not to raise the issue with the people I work with etc. It makes those around you feel defensive. Plus I don't think soap box vegetarianism has any effect but to harden attitude and achieves nothing.

With this issue, it is hard not to sound pompous or flippant, but I would like to say that as a former meat eater, I did work in a slaughterhouse, (just weighing, not killing). At the time I was able to justify it - I had been a meat eater all my life. I was prepared to go along with the inevitable cruelty. It seemed the way of the world. How many meat eaters would do that though?

I did feel sad for the animals when I would go down to the pens at night for whatever, and see the ones in there waiting for the morning. I'm not saying that they knew anything about what was going to happen to them, they were scared in an unfamiliar environment.

Later, I made a moral decision about being a veggie. I would be wary of basing a moral decision like eating meat on the issue of taste. It is not a good grounding.

I will add that The Comedian's comment seems a sensible compromise. Leaving health aside, there are issues with the production of meat v the production of crops.

There - I've gone and been all pompous. I told you it was difficult.

---

Not pompous at all! That was very nicely and fairly put!

Thank you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

No that is fine, I'm largely unconcerned with the ethics of killing animals as long as it isn't done deliberately cruelly. I just have issues with the operation of industrial farms. The average North American would probably be a lot better off with smaller and fewer servings of meat anyway.

---

Just to make myself clear, I respect that Pip. Personally I've weighed both sides of the issue and have come down that it's better for society to have affordable meat than optimum humane practices. You obviously look at it differently. I understand. I don't know your background, but I grew up poor. I sympathize with the poor.

Back to first post please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radha Krsna

Back to first post please...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radha Krsna

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.48:
“na krtva praninam himsam
mamsamtpadyate kwacit,
na ca pranivadhah svargyas
tasman mamsam vivarjayet”
(Meat will not be obtained without hurting living things, and the persecution of living beings is an obstacle / abstinence in pure bliss, and therefore a person should avoid eating meat)

Manawa Dharmasastra 5.51:
“anumanta vicasita nihanta
krayavikrayi,
samskarta copaharta ca
khadakacceti ghatakah”
(He who permits the slaughter of an animal, he is cut, he who killed him, he who buy and sell, he was a cook, he is menyuguhkannya, and he ate it all should be regarded as the killers of animals)

Manawa Dharma Sastra = The Law of Manu

Forgive me, I did not mean to say that eating meat is the main cause of ozone destruction. I am just quoting the words of a brochure about a vegetarian. I just wanted to invite you for a vegetarian to love other living creatures.

---

Sorry, but you have edited the first post just today (just 3 minutes before this one). A discussion about vegetarianism has been going on. Why are you pointing back to a recently-edited first post? What did you change about the post? As I remember it, it also was about vegetarianism, and that has been the discussion so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

I've heard this argument a lot, and for several reasons, I'm not buying it. Yes, livestock do take up a lot of room. But saying that all that space could be used for crops which would feed just as many people is not necessarily correct- just because land is suitable for grazing does not mean that it is suitable for growing crops. The fact that cows eat the equivalent of several human meals is also not applicable here: you could say that our pets (say, riding horses for example) are also eating foods that could be consumed by humans/ grazing on land on which crops might be grown. Should we also stop keeping animals recreationally?

---

Those figures aren't talking about pasture and grazing use. I don't know if you've grown up in agricultural areas or not, but my father's family are all farmers and the highways of Quebec are lined with corn and soybean farms, and this isn't for human consumption but for animal feed. Most ecologist accept that free-range agricultural practices and grass feeding are not all that damaging in the long run. However, from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

I understand that some people have certain qualms about the cruelties involved in slaughtering animals, most people probably do, but isn't this a bit overly sentimental? Without wishing to sound glib, don't vegetables have a right not to be pulled up out of the ground & slaughtered?

When I wash my hands thousands of bacteria are killed in the name of personal hygiene. I actually tried vegetarianism for a couple of years, predominantly more for perceived health benefits than for any tendentious political or religious reasons. I think it was a bacon sandwich which bought me back to being an omnivore. Meat has been a part of our diet for tens of thousands of years & is a rich source of protein. At the end of the day you could actually exist on a pure vegetable diet. If you tried to live on a pure meat diet I think you would get scurvy within a few weeks. Neither is really a balanced diet. The Royal Navy solved this problem with the introduction of fruit juices being served to sailors on long sea journeys, lime being one of the major ones, which is why Americans refer to English people as Limeys to this day.

Meat is an important part of our diet, you can get protein from other sources, but at the end of the day something usually has to die for you to consume it. It is a natural cycle. Something will probably consume us when we shuffle this mortal coil. What makes a sweet potato that much different from a cow?


Sweet Potato

Of all things living
I'd be a sweet potato,
fresh dug up.

~ Shinkichi Takahashi (1901 - 87)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

I understand that some people have certain qualms about the cruelties involved in slaughtering animals, most people probably do, but isn't this a bit overly sentimental? Without wishing to sound glib, don't vegetables have a right not to be pulled up out of the ground & slaughtered?

---

Well there are two major philosophical schools involved in animal rights advocacy. You have animal welfare advocates and animal rights advocates. I tend to be swayed by the welfare advocates. These people go back to preference utilitarian Peter Singer's 1970s Animal Liberation where he argued that since animals feel pain and can suffer we have a responsibility not to cause them harm. Singer accepts that killing animals isn't necessarily wrong because they don't have any concept of their own existence and they don't really "expect to live". It is however wrong to cause suffering to animals, because they do seem to display a preference for not being hurt. Plants feel no pain, and have no consciousness, thus they have no preferences, and thus they can't be harmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Those figures aren't talking about pasture and grazing use. I don't know if you've grown up in agricultural areas or not, but my father's family are all farmers and the highways of Quebec are lined with corn and soybean farms, and this isn't for human consumption but for animal feed. Most ecologist accept that free-range agricultural practices and grass feeding are not all that damaging in the long run. However, from the Cornell press release I posted earlier, cows in the USA consume 22 million tons of grain a year, for 7 million tons of cow. Most of that grain is consumed in the feed lots where industrial slaughter operations gather the animals and fatten them up as fast as possible to maximize their profits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot

---

See, you're the first person to actually specify that, which makes your argument far more legitimate as far as I'm concerned. And I can't help but accept your numbers: cows are consuming more than they are producing. Even so, I really don't see that as being a factor or particular importance: while I have read the current press releases stating that the wold currently has its highest-ever percentage of malnourished people, I have read in the recent past scientific journal articles stating that based on the world's current food production practices, there is enough food to eliminate malnutrition in the world, it is just not distributed in such a way. I'm sorry I can't source that, I don't think I have the papers anymore, and most online science journals want me to pay them for access.

I do know what a feedlot is and how they function. I'm studying animal biology through the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph, and a number of my early courses have been geared towards agricultural production and industry (with definite focus on welfare and housing). I've been on the feedlots.

Yes, the majority of the grain is consumed on feedlots, and while feedlots definitely have issues to be worked out, grain-fed animals do produce different meat than grass-fed ones. And as for the last-minute fattening up- it's not as though the cows are starved until just before slaughter and then stuffed until they're fat. There is a specific feeding regime which maximizes the right type of fat for good meat. Do you suggest that we grass-feed, or stop farming cattle altogether? And then what about dairy cattle? They consume more grain than they produce milk. How does this argument apply to them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Plants feel no pain, and have no consciousness, thus they have no preferences, and thus they can't be harmed.

---

This is an assumption. Nobody actually knows. What about bacteria? I understand that it is easier to identify with a cow than a turnip but modern slaughtering practises are as humane as they can be. I don't accept some 'religious' slaughtering methods though & I think that this is something that should be discussed more in the Western world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

This is an assumption. Nobody actually knows. What about bacteria? I understand that it is easier to identify with a cow than a turnip but modern slaughtering practises are as humane as they can be. I don't accept some 'religious' slaughtering methods though & I think that this is something that should be discussed more in the Western world.

---

Plants have no nervous system, it is hardly an assumption. Let alone bacteria which don't even have organelles. o.O

@Classic

I'm not an advocate of completely stopping animal exploitation. I just think we should acknowledge that there is room for improvement in the current methods of industrial farming, whether for dairy, beef, chicken, pork, etc.

Arguably it would be better for the environment and more efficient to stop producing meat altogether, but this is an unrealistic expectation. There are other issues like water contamination/use and soil erosion. This is kind of a non-issue in a place like Canada, but in the Southern USA fresh water is getting scarcer every year and arable land is being depleted.

Boycotting meat produced by factory farms is a legitimate form of political expression. However, I think the only way any real change will occur is through legislation and sensible discussion of the issues. I don't think we can trust private industry to do anything except maximize its profits, so as consumers concerned with the ethical treatment of animals and the responsible use of resources we should remain vigilant and critical of the agricultural industry.

I don't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant, but I know the PETA nuts are anti dairy farms these days. My grandfather ran a dairy farm, and I don't think any of his animals were particularly abused. I have significantly less faith in the agricultural industry today as the individual farmer becomes less and less relevant in the face of huge agribusiness.

May I ask a question? For those of you who are vegiterains...

Why are you vegetarins? What made you decide this...Personaly I just dont like meat its all stringy and not to mention revolting. as for the bigmac and cheeseburger thing...let me go find some cardboard put it under a heat lamp for 6 hours and melt some cheese on it...yum... I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephofthenight

May I ask a question? For those of you who are vegiterains...

Why are you vegetarins? What made you decide this...Personaly I just dont like meat its all stringy and not to mention revolting. as for the bigmac and cheeseburger thing...let me go find some cardboard put it under a heat lamp for 6 hours and melt some cheese on it...yum... I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

---

I used to take vitamins made for vegetarians. I eat meat now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephofthenight

May I ask a question? For those of you who are vegiterains...

Why are you vegetarins? What made you decide this...Personaly I just dont like meat its all stringy and not to mention revolting. as for the bigmac and cheeseburger thing...let me go find some cardboard put it under a heat lamp for 6 hours and melt some cheese on it...yum... I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

---

I love bigmacs, and so do millions of others. :)

to each his own, personaly i will take the cardboard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stephofthenight

I eat meat at least once a month. becuase It is a good source of essiental vitamans and such. so how do vegiterians get these?

---

I never thought of meat as being an important source of vitamins, but it turns out that there is one very important vitamin that comes primarily from things that vegans don't eat: Vitamin B-12. The rest of the vitamins and minerals seem to be coming from other things just fine, no need to eat meat for them.

I eat a TON of cheese, so I get plenty of B-12. (Eggs work, too). But my brief internet research has encountered a pretty serious warning to vegans (vegetarians who don't even eat eggs, cheese, milk, etc.) that they need to watch out for this B-12 thing, and the answer is probably to take a vitamin supplement or some fortified cereal or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin...ources_of_B-12

I have also heard that vegans should be careful to get enough calcium (again, people who eat plenty of cheese should be fine in regards to calcium).

Basically, I'm no doctor or nutritionist, but I think B-12 and calcium are the only big concerns, and that is mainly just for vegans.

Thanks Bill. intersting to know. Isn't b-12 an energy thing. ?

Realistically, if you eat meat once a month anyway, I don’t think you would.

Lads...I don't do fast food. I confess to never having a true bigmac before, but i did have a few bites of cheeseburger before being sick. I simply cant handle the though of putting that much fat in my body for something I dont even like the taste of... :(

Hmm i suppose its a shame your missing out then. :)

Having worked fast food, and seen the disgusting things. I dont feel the least like im missing out... I'll take salad or icecream any day over that.

I don't know how much seeing "disgusting things" has to do with it. If it tastes nice and you exersize I don't see a problem. I just enjoy eating meat and I dislike the sense the vegetarians are conveying on this thread that it is wrong to do so and should restricted from doing so when the majority of the population enjoy it when, in my opinion, we have every right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Plants have no nervous system, it is hardly an assumption. Let alone bacteria which don't even have organelles. o.O

---

It still doesn't mean that they don't respond to being killed. When trees are damaged they can give out chemical compounds which can be detected by other plants or trees. This could be viewed as being distressing to a tree. I think that you are being 'nervous system chauvinistic' here. This is a philosophical point. It could be stated that a turnip or a bacteria has as much right not to be killed as anything else. Where do you draw the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I'm not an advocate of completely stopping animal exploitation. I just think we should acknowledge that there is room for improvement in the current methods of industrial farming, whether for dairy, beef, chicken, pork, etc.

---

This is all to do with economics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Arguably it would be better for the environment and more efficient to stop producing meat altogether, but this is an unrealistic expectation.

---

I'm not sold on this argument at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Boycotting meat produced by factory farms is a legitimate form of political expression. However, I think the only way any real change will occur is through legislation and sensible discussion of the issues. I don't think we can trust private industry to do anything except maximize its profits, so as consumers concerned with the ethical treatment of animals and the responsible use of resources we should remain vigilant and critical of the agricultural industry.

---

Well, I wouldn't argue that the agricultural industry isn't greedy. I am not sure how much of it greed or survival however. The overall population of the planet isn't doing us any favours either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

I don't drink milk because I'm lactose intolerant, but I know the PETA nuts are anti dairy farms these days. My grandfather ran a dairy farm, and I don't think any of his animals were particularly abused. I have significantly less faith in the agricultural industry today as the individual farmer becomes less and less relevant in the face of huge agribusiness.

---

A lot of my family are farmers. I'm also lactose intolerant, my great-grandmother was Cantonese & lactose intolerance is not uncommon in some Asiatic peoples. I'll have to google who PETA are, I imagine they are a bit like the RSPCA but more militant.

Just what the world needs...more militant nutters! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

Maybe the lack of protein or having a balanced diet contributed to his being a bit, how shall we say, cracked?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limajean

meat provides the brain with certain proteins and enzymes that .. without, studies have shown, can lead to bipolar and other mental disorders.

---

Au contraire! Psychopathic individuals are the ones so-defined by their conspicuous lack of that magical and ever elusive trait the psychological world likes to call ‘empathy’. But that doesn’t make them evil people…just mean and morally suspect. :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madame X

Au contraire! Psychopathic individuals are the ones so-defined by their conspicuous lack of that magical and ever elusive trait the psychological world likes to call ‘empathy’. But that doesn’t make them evil people…just mean and morally suspect. :angel:

---

Well, I was being a bit humorous. I think it's because he was teetotal. I don't trust people who don't drink alcohol. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red-Headed

It still doesn't mean that they don't respond to being killed. When trees are damaged they can give out chemical compounds which can be detected by other plants or trees. This could be viewed as being distressing to a tree. I think that you are being 'nervous system chauvinistic' here. This is a philosophical point. It could be stated that a turnip or a bacteria has as much right not to be killed as anything else. Where do you draw the line?

---

Distressing and causing pain are two different things. We know from anesthetics that if you block the nervous system response that you block pain, the stress signals are still going off in the tissue, but there is no pain. It makes no evolutionary sense for plants to have a pain response. Pain is a warning not to continue to do something, or to run away from it. It is a great way to induce behavior in a complex conscious organism. Plants don't have to make decisions whether to move or not, thus any responses to stresses are simply immediate chemical responses.

A preference utilitarian would tell you that only a human with conscious preference not to die has a right not to be killed. Peter Singer supports infanticide up until a few months old, because he considers infants pre-conscious.

The point isn't that animals have a right not to be killed, animals have conscious preferences not to be hurt. If we accept that it is wrong to hurt humans, than it would be speciesist to say that hurting animals is acceptable. The physical process of pain transmission in both humans and animals, especially mammals, is practically identical. We can know for certain that animals feel pain.

If you could prove plants or bacteria feel pain, then maybe it would be wrong to hurt them as well. However, it seems absurd to even consider it. Moreover, we there is the key issue that human beings have the ability to survive without consuming animals, we can't really avoid killing plants and bacteria.

I'd like to clear up that my statements about the environment weren't about global warming, but were about the soil erosion and water use issues.

http://www.peta.org/

I don't know about the RSPCA, but I volunteered with the CSPCA for several years and found them to be a reasonable organization concerned mostly with the immediate issues of animal cruelty and welfare, like providing adoption and health services as well as advocating for more laws against animal cruelty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

It makes no evolutionary sense for plants to have a pain response. Pain is a warning not to continue to do something, or to run away from it. It is a great way to induce behavior in a complex conscious organism. Plants don't have to make decisions whether to move or not, thus any responses to stresses are simply immediate chemical responses.

---

Strangely; plants will react to a polygraph if part of them is damaged. In my opinion this does not mean that they are necessarily sentient, but it is a form of distress. Just because a turnip or a beansprout doesn't cry out when you strike it doesn't mean it doesn't feel some form of pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

A preference utilitarian would tell you that only a human with conscious preference not to die has a right not to be killed. Peter Singer supports infanticide up until a few months old, because he considers infants pre-conscious.

---

I am pretty sure animals don't wish to die & become food. We probably underestimate animal intelligence anyway. My entire point is still that the only reason we are having this debate is because tomatoes don't scream & bleed when they are plucked from the vine.

I have no idea who Pete Singer is.

Peter Singer is one of the most influential living philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Edit: He's worth reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPtYA...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Peter Singer is one of the most influential living philosophers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Edit: He's worth reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPtYA...eature=related

---

I think I actually have read Singer a long time ago. I just couldn't recall the name. Most of the philosophers I read have been dead quite a while!

Whether humans were designed to eat meat and whether the way in which animals in modern day time are killed to sustain us - are two separate arguments.


Someone mentioned native americans further back. They never let a single part of the animals they killed go to waste, and they were always killed in a respectable manner.

These days, the way animals are treated is a disgrace

I decided to take a break from being vegetarian at Christmas two years ago, because I was living with a phenomenal cook who made amazing east coast meat-y Christmas dinners. Then I moved to a country of meats. I'm just getting back into being veggie, now...