And PETA wants us to take them seriously?

reply to post by aorAki


When evolution tells me that the teeth I have are to not eat meat, I'll do it. The incisors and bicuspids tell us that we are designed to eat meat. Then there's PETA. I could go into more detail but if one can't get the point after that, I can't help you.

You have the CHOICE. You are not an obligate carnivore and can survive perfectly well without eating meat. It's just your addiction and some strange fear that you'll be less of a person, or some other such garbage that stops you making the move to a higher plane.
You can honestly say that you are o.k. with animals suffering so you can eat them?

reply to post by aorAki


You continue to deal with emotion. That doesn't move me. You still didn't address my points about biology and evolution that make it clear that we are omnivores. Yes we can eat the veg BUT we also need the meat. Address the science please.

reply to post by aorAki


In honor of your feelings about our opinion on eating meat, the next beer I brew is going to be bacon beer. Those little cute piggies are going to flavor my brew so much that everyone who loves meat will rejoice in the sweetness of the protein mixed with hops!

But we DON'T need the meat nowadays, that is the point!

I loved the taste of meat, but once I looked deep into the production of, and the suffering of the animals and that there are viable alternatives I sucked it up and made the choice. Yes, we can all make a choice, but to say that meat is a necessary item for our survival is just plain wrong.

Of course this is an emotional issue.



U.S. Physicians say meat not necessary...

Thirty-five years ago the US Department of Agriculture said we should daily eat from four food groups: 1. meat, fish and poultry; 2. grains; 3. dairy products; and 4. fruits and vegetables.

On April 9, 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a prestigious non-profit organization active in health and research policy and based in Washington, D.C., said basing our diet on those groups not only will not ensure adequate nutrition, consumption of meat, fish, poultry and dairy products actually causes disease.

Instead PCRM recommends a "New Four Food Groups." They are: 1. fruits; 2. grains; 3. vegetables; and 4. legumes.

This is a very significant development for vegetarians whose traditional vegetarian diet -- which easily fulfills the requirements of the "new" groups -- has been under attack in many countries by physicians sharing the common ignorance of modern medicine toward diet.

For example, numerous physicians have insisted that mothers feed their children meat -- "A real mistake," says Dr. Neal Barnard, leading to all sorts of diseases such as colic, juvenile diabetes, diarrhea and later problems such as cancer of the colon. Dr. Devananda Tandavan points out that the average doctor in America has had almost no training whatsoever in nutrition by the time he has finished medical school and may remain ignorant for the rest of his professional life on the importance of diet for good health.

www.celestialhealing.net...

michaelbluejay.com...

www.earthsave.ca...

While most humans are clearly “behavioral” omnivores, the
question still remains as to whether humans are anatomically
suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant
foods.
A better and more objective technique is to look at
human anatomy and physiology. Mammals are anatomically
and physiologically adapted to procure and consume particular
kinds of diets. (It is common practice when examining
fossils of extinct mammals to examine anatomical features
to deduce the animal’s probable diet.) Therefore, we
can look at mammalian carnivores, herbivores (plant-eaters)
and omnivores to see which anatomical and physiological
features are associated with each kind of diet. Then we can
look at human anatomy and physiology to see in which
group we belong........In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal
tract structure of a “committed” herbivore.
Humankind does not show the mixed structural features
one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as
bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal
tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and
omnivores we must conclude that humankind’s GI tract is
designed for a purely plant-food diet.

www.a4t.org...

What may be regarded as quite positive evidence as to the natural diet of man is seen in his anatomical and digestive functions. Man holds a distinctive position. based upon the classification made by science, which ranks the higher animal according to dietetic habits.

The herbivorous animals eat herbs and grass; the frugivorous fruits, grains, and nuts; the carnivorous, flesh; and the omnivorous eat all these foods. An animal's scientific classification is made according to its eating habit. Here science finds the most positive identification.

Animals that eat flesh have long, sharp, pointed canine teeth for tearing their food apart. These set considerably apart from the other teeth. The molars are saw-shaped. Man's teeth are practically of even length, and set in a complete dental arch, with no space between them. In number, form, and general arrangement, they are almost identical with the teeth of frugivorous animals. Man's teeth are distinctly different from the teeth of other classes of animals, and especially of the carnivorous.

In the carnivorous animals, the alimentary canal, or food tube, is short, only three times the length of the body from the tip of the nose to the end of the backbone. In the frugivorous, it is twelve times the length of the body.

If these characteristic features mean anything, we see that man is not fitted for eating flesh. Though he has, in times of scarcity of vegetable food, eaten meat, and while some races have even subsisted largely on it, there is no indication of any change in man's anatomy to adapt it to animal diet. From the natural formation of man, we may definitely understand that he is suited to a vegetable diet.

search.proquest.com.ezproxy.ca... nterbury.ac.nz/docview/196565863/1323628AE0538CC40F5/4?accountid=14499n (you may not be able to get access: source is:Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal Matheny, Gaverick Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics; 2003; 16, 5; ProQuest pg. 505

find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.canterbury.ac.nz... 28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ke%2CNone%2C13%29vegetarianism%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28jn%2CNone%2C42%29%22Tufts+University+Diet+%26+Nutrition+Letter%22%24&sgHitCou ntType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T004&prodId=EAIM&searchId=R1¤tPosition=1&userGroupName=canterbury&doc Id=A11825398&docType=IAC Again, may not have access: source: A ray of dietary hope for arthritis sufferers. (vegetarian diet benefits arthritics)(includes related article on rheumatoid arthritis).

Tufts University Diet & Nutrition Letter 9.n12 (Feb 1992): pp1(2).

A Norwegian study links a vegetarian diet to a decrease in pain experienced by people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. Elimination of dairy products, gluten-containing foods and animal foods decreases stiffness and swelling.

vegetarian.procon.org...


Essentially, it IS about habits and convenience. There is a perception that vegetarianism is difficult and tasteless. However, science shows us that we did not evolve as meat eaters, rather we are habitual meat eaters...

reply to post by aorAki

Of course this is an emotional issue.

Well said.

I applaud your choice even though I would not make it myself. And as long as you don’t become a bore on the subject, I support your right to try to persuade others to share your commitment to vegetarianism.

But I am a proud omnivore and will not deny myself the atavistic pleasure of eating meat. When I look at a sambhur or wild boar on the hoof it makes my mouth water (oddly enough, farm animals don’t have that effect on me). Modern industrial livestock farming is, of course, an unspeakable obscenity, though I must admit that has never stopped me from consuming its products.

The real inhumanity arises, I believe, from the disjunct between killing and eating that civilization permits. People should be made to kill the meat they eat. Not necessarily all the time; that is both impracticable and tyrannous. But it should be a rite of passage for every human child in meat-eating societies to participate in a hunt, share in the act of killing and partake of the meat afterwards. Thus the consequences of eating meat will be directly and personally experienced. If this were done, it’s possible there would be many more vegetarians.

Then again, maybe not.

I respect what PETA is trying to do (to a degree), but find them to be very distasteful -- not to mention hypocrites.

As to the whole meat thing, I think too many people are ignorant of the process. They just see the end product and have no idea the process that's involved to get it there. I respect their choice whether or not to eat meat, but I think it's only fair that they know what goes on behind the scenes right?

A few years ago I was one of those people... I was on the fence whether or not to go vegan and a friend came up with this: If you can actually kill an animal with your own hands, prepare it and eat it, you would at least somewhat be able to make a non-biased decision about whether or not to eat meat. The experience was pretty messed up, and it was surprising to discover that I was capable of slaughtering a sheep. But let me tell you this, if everyone did this test, there would be more vegans... one way or another.

reply to post by aorAki

You are mostly likely white since most vegetarians are white. I am an brown and proud Mexican and I will never go vegetarian. Diet is very important to someone's ethnic culture. I am not going to lower myself to prey.

reply to post by Chopper


Ever been to India?



I don't consider it lowering myself to prey, I view it more as raising myself above my base animal instincts.

I come from a country where the Sunday Roast is a big part of our culture, as well as hangi. I can still partake in celebrating my culture through these activities without consuming flesh.

Nice assumptions though. Awesome.

reply to post by aorAki


Congratulations on deciding to not eat meat for ethical and moral reasons. I did the same about 3 years ago, and while its a struggle at times, it is worth it.

I used to, and sometimes still do, get riled up by those who try and justify their meat addiction with flawed arguments (my favorite being the "Despite my mouth being filled with molars and lacking any semblance of scissoring teeth whatsoever like true carnivores/omnivores have, my tiny canines tell me irrefutably Im a carnivore lol!"), but its like banging your head against a brick wall. They wont get the point, perhaps because their mental faculties have been too addled by excessive amounts of rBGH and synthetic antibiotics and defoaming agents, or simply because theyre incapable of feeling compassion, it doesnt matter.

What matters is you made the compassionate choice, and are living by principle rather than by primitive urge and trying to justify it with a skewed notion of reality.

Originally posted by faithplusone
reply to post by intrepid

 

Their remark is rather unpleasant and very distasteful,but mr.moderator,do you know what are we doing to oceans?

If you think biting a mans leg is cruel,how about thousands of sharks hunted just for their fins?
How about making the shark extinct in the very near future?

I am not defending PETA,i am defending sharks and living beings...They literally cut their fins of while they are still alive and ditch them in the water....

If that doesn't break your heart you don't have one

I completely understand where you are coming from, but I think you're missing the point. It was never mentioned that the man who was bit was harvesting sharks for there fins. He was simply spear fishing for food.

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Golden Rule

 

The shark is a predator and you are a predator as well. Correct?

Correct. I agree with you that it is well to remember this, and to realize what it implies.

What PETA is trying to achieve really is just a preliminary step - the conscious change of diet is just a primer really. The hopeful direction really is that human beings can transform their nature from the primitive predatory origins to a non-predatory life-form. It is an experiment really, and probably one on which the survival of our species may well depend.

If our survival as a species depends on changing our fundamental nature, we will not survive. This is true not just semantically – because such a fundamental change would mean we had become a different species of animal – but also pragmatically, because our nature is something that, try as we might, we will never change. It is possible to change people’s behaviour over time through conditioning, but our fundamental nature is adamantine. Predators we are, and predators we shall remain, even if we never eat another sausage.

Yes, the human body has emerged from a predatory background. When you agree that a shark is a predator and the human being has emerged also from a predatory background, you are only doing so so as to justify your carnivorous diet - because you like the taste of meat and want to continue eating it. You should be aware though of the deeper significance of this whole issue.

An evolutionary history which involved a diet gleaned from predatory activity and carnivorous habits is not simply an issue to justify eating meat, because "I like it, I want it", and "besides, it is the demand from nature itself, it has nothing to do with my objections or agreements."

There is one basic difference between the human being and other members of the animal kingdom - consciousness, or if you like, at least 'self-consciousness'.

The very existence of vegetarian human beings illustrates this truth. Looking at these individuals from the skeptic's worst point of view, they are acting against the law of nature. Therefore they have made a conscious choice - evidence of conscious self-reflection.

The same case put forth against vegetarians contravening the laws of nature could be equally put forward against pair bonding homosexuals and the existence of homosexual societies. But I don't think that the same posters who bravely trot along to every post topic concerning vegetarian diet would be as gung-ho to criticize homosexuality. But that is another issue.

The deeper significance of the issue of the predatory instincts which are programmed into the human body is the issue of survival of the species itself. Desmond Morris (and many other thinkers) outlined the dangers and consequences of these instincts in his books 'The Naked Ape' and 'The Human Zoo' in the 1960s. Many intelligent writers felt obliged to ring the warning bells following the 2 Atomic bombs which were dropped on the civilian populations of Japan in 1945. In fact, one could say, the entire youth culture from then until now has been psychologically shaped by a reaction against the threat of global annihilation - every generation from the beatniks to the present iphone generation.

The majority of forums on ATS itself are shaped by the roots of the nuclear holocaust of Japan in 1945, so, as I say it is a much deeper issue than "look at the shape of our teeth, they are shaped for tearing flesh, I am going to buy a nice juicy steak tonight and guess what? I'm going to eat it, nom nom nom - in your face you squeamish vegetarian wimps!"

The predatory instinct carries much more than a predisposition to want to eat at McDonalds. Jealousy, possessiveness, ambition, aggression, competitiveness, acquisitiveness, greed, cunning, deceit, social hierarchies based on levels of aggressiveness, the instincts to create weapons etc etc. are all part and parcel of this instinct.

When tree-huggers express their disagreement with GMO crops, the same skeptics who say that eating meat is the right thing to do because it is the law of nature, will argue with them that science is improving upon nature with these crops.

In other words, 'blind biology' is not always right - blind biology can be modified and "improved upon" to create something more in tune with the demands of survival?

The instinct of the predator can also be improved upon - it can be transformed. This is what Ancient Indian Vedic culture set out to do.

The approach is scientific but the language is poetic - it appeals more towards the intuitive mind.

The metaphor of the lotus arising from the mud is one such example - Buddha himself indicating that compassion itself does not exist in opposition to greed or self-interest - it is the transformation of greed, or anger or self-interest into compassion. This is what real alchemy is - transforming the base natural instincts into a higher form.
And this is the challenge set before us on both an individual and societal level or face the inevitable destruction that is the conclusion of ignorance.

reply to post by intrepid


The buggards just make me laugh and love laughing in their face with a nice deer hide on my back.

I read this in the paper this morning. More PETA hypocrisy:

These statistics are available through Virginia’s Sunshine Law and, as incredible as some may find it, since 1998, of 31,815 animals (mostly dogs and cats) admitted to PETA shelters, only 3,159 were adopted — and 27,751 were killed.

That’s 9.7% adoption rate and an 87.2% kill rate — a ghastly record for an organization purporting to work on behalf of animals. What it indicates is a view that if an animal isn’t free and in the wild, it is better off dead.

www.torontosun.com...

Originally posted by intrepid
I read this in the paper this morning. More PETA hypocrisy:

These statistics are available through Virginia’s Sunshine Law and, as incredible as some may find it, since 1998, of 31,815 animals (mostly dogs and cats) admitted to PETA shelters, only 3,159 were adopted — and 27,751 were killed.

That’s 9.7% adoption rate and an 87.2% kill rate — a ghastly record for an organization purporting to work on behalf of animals. What it indicates is a view that if an animal isn’t free and in the wild, it is better off dead.

www.torontosun.com...

That is because PETA is an animal rights group, not an animal welfare group. If PETA had their way, every domesticated animal that couldn't survive well without humans, would be extinct.

You see PETA uses a cross between Marxism and Gender Feminism in it's ideology(obsession with power, control, dominance etc). PETA's long term goals is to "liberate" animals from humans. And some elements of PETA advocate human extinction-ism.

As per diet, my opinion is "save a cow, eat a vegetarian".

But seriously though, I am beginning to subscribe to the diet by blood type thing going around.

www.thenaturalhealthplace.com...

Me personally, I can live without pork. I can even live without beef and the consumption of other mammals. But I still need my poultry and fish. Otherwise after a few weeks my more feral nature begins to assert itself.


I also like the whole personality by blood type as well:
www.2-4.com...[]=4&Submit=Find+Out!

I read a report today that really surprised me. Said Peta killed 94% of the pets they took in.

Link

I do like their naked state of the union speeches. Other than that their about as useful as dental floss to someone with no teeth.