It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Humans are naturally plant-eaters

page: 20
41
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by PoorFool
What definition are you going by that condemns an animal a murderer for killing another animal for food


mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
To put an end to; destroy


Originally posted by PoorFool
it's programmed to? You need to step off your high horse and realize this is nature, you do not make the rules.


Should you be willing to mount my said horse, I'll ride you to the brink of truth i.e. you're confusing nature with nurture:

en.wikipedia.org...

Your faith in nature is misguided until you understand this disparity.
edit on 22/1/2011 by rexusdiablos because: (no reason given)


Sorry, that is not an acceptable definition of murder. You cannot attach meaning to words. Animals do commit murder on occasion, which is infanticide. But killing for food does not fall into that category.

I am not confusing nature vs nurture. If it's not natural for humans to eat meat, then how come you still haven't showed me a single society on earth that lives off nothing but plants?




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalamatas
So what would you do if your dog was suffering in agonizing pain near the ending of his life. Let him suffer? Isn't letting an animal suffer inhumane/ unspiritual?


You've digressed, badly. Euthanasia and the "humane" killing of animals for food production are incongruent.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Can't babies live exclusively off of breast milk?

reply to post by kalamatas
 

I have a dog who happily shares the same diet as I.

edit on 22-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)


You mean you force your dog to eat an unnatural diet which he would otherwise never adhere to? Dogs can't chose.

I am amazed that you find it immoral to eat meat but you refuse to give your dog nourishing food that he needs. You do not deserve to own one. I feel sorry for him.

You people are dangerous.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


I'm wondering what you think you know that all these spiritual personalities and groups did not.


Answer: Unnecessary suffering is wrong.

Why should I limit myself to failures of Christ, Moses, Muhammad and the Buddhists?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 



Answer: Unnecessary suffering is wrong.


Agreed, but, the suffering that farm animals for food go through is necessary for them to have even had a life.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Can't babies live exclusively off of breast milk?

reply to post by kalamatas
 

I have a dog who happily shares the same diet as I.

edit on 22-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)


Breastmilk would constitute animal protein then right. That brings me back to the whole video posted about too much casein from milk in rats. Nobody eats straight casein. Nobody strips milk proteins from breastmilk and feeds that solely to babies. So that points to a contrived study based on an unnatural scenario.

Do you incorporate supplements and enzymes with that since dogs and cats don't naturally carry the enzymes to digest plant material. That is inhumane, to force an animal to eat something his body wasn't designed for because of your ethical issues.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by kalamatas
So what would you do if your dog was suffering in agonizing pain near the ending of his life. Let him suffer? Isn't letting an animal suffer inhumane/ unspiritual?


You've digressed, badly. Euthanasia and the "humane" killing of animals for food production are incongruent.


No you implied that all killing is murder regardless of intent and method. So swift slaughter and euthanasia are different because one contains empathetic emotion and the other is for survival? If there's a difference, then killing for survival is not the same as killing out of malicious intent.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kalamatas
 


Thats not true, the food is very wholesome (and expensive) for them. My last vegi-dog spent the last 10 years of her life as a veghead. She lived to be 20 y/o, much longer than the average. She still holds the record of being vegi longer than myself.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoorFool
But killing for food does not fall into that category.


Incorrect. If I killed you to eat your flesh would it not be murder?


Originally posted by PoorFool

I am not confusing nature vs nurture. If it's not natural for humans to eat meat, then how come you still haven't showed me a single society on earth that lives off nothing but plants?


Simple. We haven't embraced transhumanism yet whereby the need to feed becomes outmoded. Nanotechnology may equally suffice.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


You obviously know jack squat about Buddhists or Buddha.

The only failure is your failure to understand what Buddhism is about, and your failure to pass yourself off as a spiritual authority.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by kalamatas
 


Thats not true, the food is very wholesome (and expensive) for them. My last vegi-dog spent the last 10 years of her life as a veghead. She lived to be 20 y/o, much longer than the average. She still holds the record of being vegi longer than myself.

You certainly have no grasp of basic science or nature, and can't even argue. Dogs are strict carnivores, not even omnivores. Yet you take them off their natural diet and put them on the extreme end of the spectrum, which is disgusting and arrogant. Your dog does not give a # about your personal moral issues.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by kalamatas
 


Thats not true, the food is very wholesome (and expensive) for them. My last vegi-dog spent the last 10 years of her life as a veghead. She lived to be 20 y/o, much longer than the average. She still holds the record of being vegi longer than myself.


I don't agree with feeding dogs veg, but hey I can see how it would have extended her life farther than the crap that comprises commercial pet food. I think dogs should be able to live to a ripe old age like 20, but can also on a meat diet that's not melamine, hormone laced road kill.
edit on 22-1-2011 by kalamatas because: typo



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by PoorFool
But killing for food does not fall into that category.


Incorrect. If I killed you to eat your flesh would it not be murder?


Originally posted by PoorFool

I am not confusing nature vs nurture. If it's not natural for humans to eat meat, then how come you still haven't showed me a single society on earth that lives off nothing but plants?


Simple. We haven't embraced transhumanism yet whereby the need to feed becomes outmoded. Nanotechnology may equally suffice.


"Murder" is a man-made concept. The word implies killing for an malign purpose. Humans do not eat each other naturally, therefore if you are sane, it would be considered murder. But if an animal killed me for food, it is not. The Praying Mantis female eats the male after mating. Beautiful insects. www.virginmedia.com... It's the course of nature.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by PoorFool
But killing for food does not fall into that category.


Incorrect. If I killed you to eat your flesh would it not be murder?


Originally posted by PoorFool

I am not confusing nature vs nurture. If it's not natural for humans to eat meat, then how come you still haven't showed me a single society on earth that lives off nothing but plants?


Simple. We haven't embraced transhumanism yet whereby the need to feed becomes outmoded. Nanotechnology may equally suffice.


Nanotechnology? Transhumanism? No thanks, where you're going is not where I want to go.

Nanotechnology? Transhumanism, hardly spiritual.

And if someone killed another for survival, I wouldn't call it murder, I'd call it survival.
edit on 22-1-2011 by kalamatas because: typo



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
Agreed, but, the suffering that farm animals for food go through is necessary for them to have even had a life.


That's hardly the only means of existence for such species. It's simply the only means you seem capable of conceiving.

There's a difference.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 




Unnecessary suffering is wrong


Unnecessary suffering is simply unnecessary...
"right" or "wrong" is just the value judgment you're giving it based on your mammalian urge to protect life.

Humans have the double-edged curse of "knowing" more than any other animal, but the downside is the tendency to create value judgements about EVERYTHING because of our ability to retain vast amounts information.

You know what else is unnecesary?

Human existence...
How much less suffering would there be if we'd all just stop procreating? =]


edit on 22-1-2011 by DeReK DaRkLy because: spelling, etc



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PoorFool
 


Do you have children? Did you give them a choice of diet?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by Azp420
Agreed, but, the suffering that farm animals for food go through is necessary for them to have even had a life.


That's hardly the only means of existence for such species. It's simply the only means you seem capable of conceiving.

There's a difference.


Farm animals shouldn't have to suffer, and in responsible farms don't.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
You know what else is unnecesary?

Human existence...
How much less suffering would there be if we'd all just stop procreating? =]



I know you weren't really asking for an answer... but...

An UNFATHOMABLE amount.


Or we could just change our ways while still getting wild in the bedroom.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join