PETA and the moral issues of a vegan diet

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I couldnt find a forum for this, so this one will have to do.


Many people are turning to a vegan diet because they are falsely lead to believe they are 'saving animals' and that they now lead a 'guiltless' or 'bloodless' lifestyle. I find this to be a terrible misconception among all vegans, and possibly even non vegans alike.

I also do not believe a vegan diet is any more healthy than a well balanced diet of meats aswell as vegetables, due to the fact vegetables CANNOT provide all the nessescary protiens and nutrients needed for the body to work at optimum efficiency.

But I made this thread to discuss the moral issues of whether a vegan diet is more 'morally sound' than a balanced, meat eating diet. I find this is not the case;
eesc.orst.edu...

Case in point, the vegan diet falsely promotes the benefit that animals need not be slaughtered to feed you. This is very much not the case, unless you grow ALL your own food.
Discuss.




posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Good topic for debate of which I have entered into before with these people.

Well we don't know but maybe killing plants doesn't make them too happy? What do I know?

Take animals in the wild, yeah they are free but food is not guaranteed and they are not always happy or over joyed. Often life is short lived and death is horrific too at times.

Humans can raise animals and if they treat them well and give them a reasonable life then it is moral for people to kill them and consume them I think. But this is where PETA has a point though, we are not doing that now. We used to raise our animals that way before industrialized farming too over like our ancestors did. Those people were proud of what they did and I never saw guilt on their faces.

I also think that people in the Americas and Europe eat too much meat. We do not need as much as we eat. I like the Chinese philosophy to food, their proportions and attention to detail and nutrition. They have a good philosophy, maybe the best overall. Except that some of them eat anything they can, that is a bit much mind you.

Anyways a good topic for discussion.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
thanks theneo, but my main problem with peta is this;
if they could propose a system that is just as efficient or better than the ones in use today, which would provide the same quality of food or better, for the same price, i would back them 100%. i dont see them even trying this though, all i can see is OMG. EATING MEAT IS MURDER. STOP IT NOW.
how can they possibly believe they are part of the solution if they dont have any?



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I keep the meat to a minimum, but I love it.

Ever been in an industrial chicken house?
I'll never eat another chicken nugget again.

They eat their poopoo


Alot of animals are pumped with steroids to make them bigger. Wonder what effect this has on the body over a long period of time? Some claim to be "grain fed" "steroid free".
Sheesh....who knows, with MadCow, I trust beef even less.

Remember the scene in "The Great Outdoors" with John Candy, when the raccoons were digging thru the trash and they find the hotdogs. One warns the other not to eat the hotdog because it's "lips and azzholes"


L8R
BAKED



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
foresakenway,

hey you make good points man,

believe it or not I used to work for Greenpeace before and I was always on them to 'propose workable solutions so that people will actually take you seriously.'

they are doing that more now actually.

but PETA, yeah freak city man!

but sometimes people don't think so hard, I know a person that belongs to PETA and sends them money but that person has a weakness for all kinds of fast food...

makes you go hummmm...



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
chicken, aswell as rabbits eat their own 'poo' at specific times during the day because that specific 'poo' is actually half-disgested food, and quite nourishing to the animal the second time through. not that it makes any difference to me, i enjoy my food cooked, rofl.



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
chicken, aswell as rabbits eat their own 'poo' at specific times during the day because that specific 'poo' is actually half-disgested food, and quite nourishing to the animal the second time through. not that it makes any difference to me, i enjoy my food cooked, rofl.


And then there is corn!
Hungry?


The picky people are only the ones that can afford to be!
Peta needs to learn the food chain.
The bigger/smarter animals are at the top....
It's the way the world is.
People will always eat meat.
Some have even eaten other people to survive.
Some enjoy eating other people (jeff Damhler)



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   
bump


no one has any other views on this subject?



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
people are meat eaters, period.

At least this one is.

Animals may look cute on TV but they look beautiful in a frying pan



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I miss eating steak.


Damn you Mad Cow!

btw, dogs eat # all the time, and still people let them lick them on the face and say oooh they have cleaner mouth than a human.

I don't recall ever eating my own turds, or anyone elses.

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Lysergic]



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Just as a side note to the PETA thing. They are against wearing fur or leather, but what they conveniently forget is that the production of synthetic textiles involves all sorts of petrochemicals and has a fairly large environmental footprint.

If the situation were reversed, I think that a mink would have no problem wearing a people coat.

That being said, from an environmental standpoint, a diet based primarily on grains and has a lot less impact than a diet based primarily on meat. You can feed a lot more people per acre with plant based foods than you can with meat.



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
from a PURELY environmental stantpoint, yes. if you put aside the fact that land can only be farmed so much before it becomes barren and lifeless, yea sure. and if you also put aside the fact that vegetables cannot provide all the nessescary nutrients, which a balanced meat including diet makes up for, yea that is the right choice.



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I also find it peculiar how you could be against killing and still eat plants. Are they not living as well? Yeah, been in this arguement before. Not to mention eating is a natural habit. I don't believe fingers should be pointed at either meat or vegan eaters. Mmm?



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
i dont think anyone here is pointing finger at the person per-se. do you?



posted on Jan, 8 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Not at all. Just agreeing with the topic. I find it silly to point fingers. I'm just commenting that the last time I was discussing this topic, people flamed each other on who was better. Quite childish.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
What PETA & others don't realize is that many of us cannot solely be vegans to be healthy. Our bodies require meat to be healthy. I've tested this assertion on my own body.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Here is peta's take on milk
Well, the link was on Peta



www.milksucks.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

thanks theneo, but my main problem with peta is this;
if they could propose a system that is just as efficient or better than the ones in use today, which would provide the same quality of food or better, for the same price, i would back them 100%. i dont see them even trying this though, all i can see is OMG. EATING MEAT IS MURDER. STOP IT NOW.
how can they possibly believe they are part of the solution if they dont have any?


Ahh, but you see, PETA isn't interested in a LOGICAL solution to the problem. They are more concerned with their perceived morality issues, than actually doing something about them. They honestly believe that if they make people aware of how animals are treated, we'll stop eating them, using their fur, etc.

The point is though, many of us don't really give a #. I know, that we as humans need certain things in our diet, that CANNOT be gotten from veggies, and/or supplements alone. Also, we are DESIGNED this way by nature...so yes, it is perfectly natural, and moral, for us to eat meat. Likewise, there isn't a single artificial fur on the market as good as the real thing....


I lump animals into a few different categories...

PESTS-these are things I simply wouldn't hesitate to kill, bugs, spiders, snakes, etc. yes, I realize their place in the ecosystem yada yada....but I'm still going to get them before they get me...


FOOD-cows, chickens, etc. they are simply a resource, that's it....period.

PETS-animals I'd actually care about and almost treat like a human.

WILD-pretty much anything that doesn't fit into any of the above categories....and they are simply to be appreciated (from afar), and/or ignored.



posted on Jan, 9 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
A long ....long time ago I was studying the martial arts. I was very fortunate to meet my master's master rom Okinawa. He was a small,vibrant man in his eighties and I asborbed his wisdom like a starving young man.

I asked him ... Master, what is the secret to long life?

He answered ...Good Food, Good Sleep, Good Sex ...Not alot of it, just good.


I asked him ...Master, why is it you eat vegetables and not meat, do plants not live and feel?

Yes, he replied, but they are easier to catch, easier to clean and don't scream as loud.



posted on Mar, 2 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
i have heard a theory somewhare that we (homo sapiens)would still be living in the trees swinging from our prehensile tails if we did not happen upon a diet that included meat.it was something about our evolutionary process or the like.could be wrong though.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 88 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def