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: 21
41
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 



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


It's pretty indisputable that the vast majority of pigs and cattle alive on this planet can thank being a future dinner for the reason of their existence. Sure, pigs could exist in the wild if we didn't eat them, but that would mean most who are alive today would have never been given a chance to experience existence. Therefore the suffering is necessary for most individual pigs and cattle to experience life at all.

reply to post by kalamatas
 



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


Exactly. Humans are doing these animals a huge favor by giving them the gift of life.


edit on 22-1-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 

That's just gross, AND is definitely NOT vegetarian.
edit on 22-1-2011 by kalamatas because: ick

edit on 22-1-2011 by kalamatas because: ickyx2



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


Plants bleed fluids and even scream when cut.

Why aren't you championing their right to less suffering?

Is it because they aren't filled with red bits?



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalamatas

Originally posted by The_Zomar
My friends appreciate me being vegetarian.


Okay, I admit, too far.


That's just gross, AND is definitely NOT vegetarian.

And it's not even true, I can say from experience.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


Plants bleed fluids and even scream when cut.

Why aren't you championing their right to less suffering?

Is it because they aren't filled with red bits?


Which means the real future lies in not eating.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 



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


It's pretty indisputable that the vast majority of pigs and cattle alive on this planet can thank being a future dinner for the reason of their existence. Sure, pigs could exist in the wild if we didn't eat them, but that would mean most who are alive today would have never been given a chance to experience existence. Therefore the suffering is necessary for most individual pigs and cattle to experience life at all.

reply to post by kalamatas
 



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


Exactly. Humans are doing these animals a huge favor by giving them the gift of life.


edit on 22-1-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)


Furthermore, farm animals (in an ideal setting) lead much better lives than those in the wild. I feel no guilt whatsoever in eating a healthy animal who has had a long life and plenty of food and in the end gave up his body to nourish mine.

Besides, farm animals cannot live successfully in the wild. They were bred to be livestock.
edit on 22-1-2011 by PoorFool because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by PoorFool

Originally posted by kalamatas

Originally posted by The_Zomar
My friends appreciate me being vegetarian.


Okay, I admit, too far.


That's just gross, AND is definitely NOT vegetarian.

And it's not even true, I can say from experience.


Your avatar fits perfectly with this.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalamatas

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.


In the context of euthanasia, seeing as how it might appease the suffering of the animal, I see no wrong with it bar the explicit consent of the animal which isn't something we can as of yet extrapolate so it's a grey area for me.

Using this to justify killing an animal for survival is a bit of desperate argument especially considering you've already admitted that you wouldn't consider eating a parent, sibling or friend in the same predicament. It screams subjectivity and a failure to look beyond the self and the species.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by PoorFool
 


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


They do make choices, when they refuse to eat something is very very hard to make them eat that and the only alternative is punishment or just give them things they do eat.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexusdiablos

Originally posted by kalamatas

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.


In the context of euthanasia, seeing as how it might appease the suffering of the animal, I see no wrong with it bar the explicit consent of the animal which isn't something we can as of yet extrapolate so it's a grey area for me.

Using this to justify killing an animal for survival is a bit of desperate argument especially considering you've already admitted that you wouldn't consider eating a parent, sibling or friend in the same predicament. It screams subjectivity and a failure to look beyond the self and the species.


No I wouldn't eat my family as my goal would be their survival, not mine. And they would be welcome to eat me if I died and they needed me for survival.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


Plants bleed fluids and even scream when cut.

Why aren't you championing their right to less suffering?

Is it because they aren't filled with red bits?


Shouldn't the answer be obvious? In a dietary context, I can survive without slaughtering animals and rendering them as food. I can't approach vegetative consumption in the same manner. That's essentially why I advocate transhumanism and nanotechnology so that feeding and resting, to name but a few functions, become outmoded ergo yes, I am championing my vegatative friends.

Sure, if I wanted to reach the pinnacle of righteousnesses I'd opt for starvation - I haven't, but as self-serving and disgusting as you might find that, I'm still making a hell of a more of an effort than you, right?

Your argument is tantamount to not walking on your left leg because your right leg is broken. Pick yourself back up and realize than it's better to walk towards a solution than fall victim to absolutism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm off to bed ladies and gents. It's been nice having a challenging but respectful conversation on a matter that so frequently derails to flaming.




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


Nighty night. May you have beautiful mouthwatering dreams of asparagus, cantaloupe and figs. Mine will be prosciutto wrapped!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kalamatas
 





posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I speak from personal experience.

I play football at a semi professional level.

1 Year at Easter i decided to fast the 40 days for Lent. So that meant being a vegan but in that time i still continuously trained and played football. What i found was by the time the 40 days were up i dont think i had the energy needed to type on my keyboard. Cutting out meats and dairy was a very big risk.

So from personnel experience i think humans need to east meats bc of the rich source of proteins/irons/ fats etc....

the key to being healthy is a balance in your diet and really only eating what the body needs to eat.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
humans also killed each other over religion which was completely normal for a very long time. we also had slaves that were treated like animals more than people. i believe that meat contains important nutrients for human but ONLY in moderation or you run the risk of many diseases and problems linked to meat alone. the current day food provides a way to get a lot of nutrition from non meat although i would say we havent reached the point where we can stop eating meat all together yet, but we will



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
How about everyone eat what they want and leave others alone about what they choose to eat.

Everyone cares too much about what others are doing. Worry about YOURSELF, own YOURSELF. If you don't like people eating meat then shut your mouth and eat all the veggies you want to.

Now, if you want to argue about the way these animals are slaughtered then that's fine, i think its horrible how they're treated.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by gate13
I speak from personal experience.

I play football at a semi professional level.

1 Year at Easter i decided to fast the 40 days for Lent. So that meant being a vegan but in that time i still continuously trained and played football. What i found was by the time the 40 days were up i dont think i had the energy needed to type on my keyboard. Cutting out meats and dairy was a very big risk.

So from personnel experience i think humans need to east meats bc of the rich source of proteins/irons/ fats etc....

the key to being healthy is a balance in your diet and really only eating what the body needs to eat.


The weakness you felt wasn't a result of a vegan diet. It was a result of a sudden change of eating meat for so long and then completely stopping. Much the same way a smoker feels terrible after smoking. It's not the fact that he stopped smoking that makes him feel ill; its the sudden stop when your body was so used to the meat.

That my friends, is how veganism and vegetarianism gets a bad rep; through the failure of doing it properly and then denouncing it all as bad because you failed to do it correctly.
edit on 22-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by Sly1one
 


The strong overtake the weak. The strongest protect the weak.


This isn't and cannot be true otherwise we would be # slapping every tiger that ever went after its prey...and we don't...because we understand the nature of their relationship, predator and prey...to protect one you harm the other. The only truly natural thing to do is leave it be...

The strong overtake the weak...period.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 



Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Shouldn't the answer be obvious? In a dietary context, I can survive without slaughtering animals and rendering them as food. I can't approach vegetative consumption in the same manner. That's essentially why I advocate transhumanism and nanotechnology so that feeding and resting, to name but a few functions, become outmoded ergo yes, I am championing my vegatative friends.


I'm just pointing out that your hypocrisy damages the credit you're trying to build as some kind of Spiritual superior to people who OBVIOUSLY beat you out on that attribute. People like Buddha who caused less harm than you, even though you claim to have learned the lesson better. You use a computer, you have already caused more harm than Buddha ever did and you place one form of life above another.


Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Sure, if I wanted to reach the pinnacle of righteousnesses I'd opt for starvation - I haven't, but as self-serving and disgusting as you might find that, I'm still making a hell of a more of an effort than you, right?


You already claimed spiritual superiority to Buddha, don't backpedal now.

reply to post by rexusdiablos
 



Originally posted by rexusdiablos

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?


I never claimed to be some kind of spiritual master who learned lessons that even Jesus and Buddha did not learn...like you did. I never said anything about wanting people to starve or calling them self-serving or lacking spirituality for eating. That's you dishonestly putting words in my mouth.

Effort? You are putting a lot of effort into pretending to be something you are obviously not.


Originally posted by rexusdiablos
Your argument is tantamount to not walking on your left leg because your right leg is broken. Pick yourself back up and realize than it's better to walk towards a solution than fall victim to absolutism.


Complete nonsense.

You think you should only eat vegetables.
I accept nourishment from both plant and animal sources.

I think you should study up on the meaning of absolutism.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by Sly1one
 


The strong overtake the weak. The strongest protect the weak.


This isn't and cannot be true otherwise we would be # slapping every tiger that ever went after its prey...and we don't...because we understand the nature of their relationship, predator and prey...to protect one you harm the other. The only truly natural thing to do is leave it be...

The strong overtake the weak...period.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)


We wouldn't do that, it would just be plain stupid. It would result in killing off a species of animals to protect another; which would be fruitless. Some of the responsible part humanity protects the weak by preserving the species and protecting them from extinction. According to your logic we should kill off those surviving animals of an endangered species because they are "weak".

Come off of it. You must have had your ass kicked way too many times in highschool and now you feel the need to present yourself as powerful and masculine. The smarter ones see through your rouse, and sees how pitiful you are.
edit on 22-1-2011 by The_Zomar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join