Little Boy Discovers Meat Is Murder; Makes His Mom Cry..

reply to post by Christian Voice

Why is food unnecessary? Food is needed to survive and thankfully it is pleasurable to eat most things.

eating animals is unnecessary. humans do not need to eat meat or animal products to live. it actually shortens your life and makes you unhealthy.

so i ask you, why do you kill when it isn't necessary?

reply to post by Christian Voice

108 woman, all vegan.

reply to post by purplemer


Here are just a few sites that publish scientific study results on vegetarianism (there are tons I found):
www.lef.org...
www.livestrong.com...
www.opposingviews.com...

The only studies that claim vegetarians live longer are obviously biased studies by vegan groups and other biased sources.
I see absolutely no problem whatsoever in someone choosing to be a vegetarian or a vegan, but it is absolutely not wrong in any sense to be omnivorous.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


It is necessary for us to have large amounts of protein. We need protein and other vitamins and minerals that are only in trace amounts in the plant world. I just posted study information that says that vegetarians have never been proven to live any longer. In fact they say that by the 9th decade of life that we require nutrients that just are not going to happen from plants. How is it natural to eat only vegetables and then supplement with vitamins? It is not. If you lived in one spot on this planet and have no resources to ever buy supplements or plants that do not grow in your area (only grow in remote areas of the planet originally) and you have to live on the plants around you, you will never ever get all of the protein and vitamins and nutrients you need without eating meat. It is just odd to me to withdraw meat from your diet and then have to take artificial supplements to make up for what you lose.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by Bob Sholtz

 

You cannot equate veganism or vegetarianism to being Christian. We have already discussed this. I just posted about Jesus telling Peter to rise up, KILL and eat. If you choose to not eat meat then that is a personal choice of yours but it is not Biblical so don't try and say it is. As far as you thinking that the pastey looking vegans and vegetarians out there are healthier than those of us omnivores, I beg to differ. I eat meat everyday, eat veggies and fruits everyday. I would challenge you to any physical contest you would like and see who is more physically fit. Show me a vegan pro athlete. There is no way possible to get all of the protein the human body needs from just plants. Not if you are active at all. I guess if you choose to be a couch potato then vegetarianism would be somewhat ok, but if you are active at all you need up to 1.4 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight per day.
We have the teeth for it, the physical need for it, there is nothing wrong with being an omnivore.
Answer me this. Plants are living breathing organisms as well. Why is it not murder to eat them? They respond to stimulation, they grow and reproduce, why is that not murder?

if you think unnecessary killing is biblical, you should reread the bible. what did daniel do when given the choice to eat the king's best food? he rejected it in favor of vegetables and water. the perfect world god set up had no killing, no meat eating. "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." so much killing in heaven, eh?

"can't get enough protein" complete falsehood. tofu has more protein per calories than beef, very little fat, and no LDL.

here's a list of vegan athletes with research to back it's advantages
www.cok.net...

you seem to know very little about nutrition.

reply to post by Christian Voice

The only studies that claim vegetarians live longer are obviously biased studies by vegan groups and other biased sources

the only studies that claim meat eaters live longer are obviously biased studies by meat eater groups and other biased sources.

i'm going to stop replying to you, you aren't interested in truth.

reply to post by iwilliam

Your argument is a straw man argument because you are trying to compare the level of danger of allowing a child a vegetarian diet, to the level of danger of allowing a child to play with a dangerous animal.

I thought we settled that. The only way to turn it into a strawman is to take it out of context. The context (quoted in that post I made) was that parents should not control their children, and even the original poster of that statement agreed that some control is necessary.

It is true that a parent's job is protecting their child. It is true that offering guidance is part of that job. And I will concede, that if a person is too poor, or too stupid to create a healthful diet without meat, they should probably encourage their child to eat meat once in a while.

I think I have already agreed with similar statements several times. I know for a fact I have stated that it is better to live without meat than without vegetables.

I do take exception to your condescension of the poor and the characterization of those who choose to eat meat as "stupid." That is an elitist attitude that does nothing to promote your argument. Your University courses notwithstanding, I can personally remember one particular week when, according to the experts in nutritional science, whole milk went from being simply a food source to being deadly (as in shortening life span by the ounce!) to being beneficial and healthy, to being OK in most cases. I don't even know what the official story is today, because I quit worrying much about the expert opinions that week so long ago.

I do know that the human body requires a plethora of different chemicals, some of which are produced in the body, others which have to be acquired through food, and still others that are only partially synthesized and partially absorbed. I also know we really have very limited knowledge concerning all of these different substances. In light of that inexact knowledge, I do not see why someone who chooses to use personal experience instead of an official story which changes regularly is "stupid"... perhaps "informed and rebellious"?

Letting your child eat whatever they please? Of course not. I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

Actually, yes you are. By allowing a child to choose their diet on "moral grounds," you open the door to choices made exclusively by the child. Morals are particular to each individual. Can a child object to eating carrots on a moral basis? Sure! Potatoes? Of course! Rice? No problem, because only one person has full knowledge of the child's moral base: the child. You obviously believe eating meat is immoral, and as an adult that is completely fine for you. I support your endeavor to uphold your morality and wish you nothing but the best in doing so. What i do not support is the idea of enforcing your morality, your beliefs, your agenda on others who may have a differing view of what is moral and differing beliefs.

Even worse, you use an obviously staged video using a child who is probably too young to even fully comprehend what they are saying to promote the agenda of forcing others into your moral mold.

I, by condemning this usage of a child to promote an agenda, am trying to force no one to live any particular way, other than declaring the use of this child to be shameful. You are using this child to try and force others into your belief system, evidenced not only by your continual pleas to change lifestyles, but by the aforementioned insulting characterizations.

Be the change you wish to be. When you have lived long enough and are healthy enough, promote your lifestyle using yourself as an example and others may well respond. Do not try and force others to be the change you want to be, as all that does is harden resolve against your arguments.

TheRedneck

reply to post by iwilliam

This statement is overly-simple and because of that, incorrect. I don't have time to completely read through the sources you posted, but it is quite possible to get inadequate nutrition if food sources are not varied enough. To use an exaggerated example-- if you eat white rice, and only white rice, every day, you will not get a complete enough range of amino acids.

please reread my post. it was from a scientific study.

it is actually impossible to eat a variety of starches and vegetables, meet the required caloric daily intake, but not get adequate nutrition.

impossible to EAT A VARIETY, meet the require caloric daily intake, but not get adequate nutrition.

Snowdon 1988, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48, 739: A study of 27,529 Seventh-day Adventist adults over a 20-year period revealed that the consumption of specific animal products (meat, eggs, milk) was associated with mortality, heart disease, cancer, and/or diabetes.

www.thevegetariansite.com...

there are probably 20-30 studies on this site that point to an extreme increase in health by being vegan.

Well if that wasnt the most beautiful video I have ever watched. Simply precious.

Reminds me when I was a child and the teacher was trying to explain how we were free citizens, yet forced to go to war? From day 1 they started teaching war to me it was always presented as a needed or justifiable thing. I just could never rationalize wat was said to me. Just appalling behavior completely contrary to what I knew was right naturally as a child.

The foolishness of our ancestors and the foolishness of us allows this to continue unabated. As if the average citizen in Europe, the US, Middle East, Asia, etc actually wishes to wage war. We have been goose stepped into misery and bloodshed and made to believe its right.

Same scenario applies here to killing animals and if we weren't so ignorant and took a moment to see what we re allowing to be processed for us....man o man. I suppose its easier to turn away because trying to clean up this disaster is beyond measurable.

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

What?! A freaking toddler is not supposed to think for him or her self. They do not have enough experience with life to do so. We are supposed to guide, lead, clothe, feed, teach, and protect our children. Be a PARENT for Gods sake.

Yes, children need guidance. Does that mean you dictate everything to them? Of course not. Dictatorial parenting, as I see it, is a big reason so many people are so single-minded. If a two year old has a profound thought, such as an animal had to die to provide his meal, and he decides he doesn't want to eat meat because of that, I see no problem in letting him or her have their way. You don't need meat for a healthy, balanced diet that you can thrive upon. I'm not here to prove that to you, but if you look you will find it's the truth.

Personally, I eat meat. I buy local meat from a butcher I know. I also buy local dairy and I trade my fresh made bread with a friend for his freshly laid, organic eggs. (he doesn't lay them, his chickens do..)

I have two kids, one 11 and one 3. Both are able to make their own decisions to a point, and both are incredibly intelligent for their ages. Both learn from their mistakes and both of them, so far, feel comfortable coming to me with any questions or concerns they may have in life. I hope this doesn't change. My parenting plan will continue as it is, because living in a very religious community I see that kids who are allowed to find their own way tend to be more intelligent, more successful individuals. Hands-on experience is best.

So if the mother of the incredibly clever kid in the OP's video is willing to support her son's choice, continue to educate and provide him with open and honest answers for his questions, and most importantly, is willing to make the effort to provide him a healthy and diverse diet that is meat free, I support her.

I'm sorry you were dictated to as a child, and I'm sorry you feel you need to do the same. Some of us learned from our parents mistakes - the rest of us grew up to emulate those mistakes.

My son isn't a big meat eater - we go out of our way to be sure he's getting everything he needs out of his meals. We also make sure he takes two daily vitamins for kids every day. My daughter is a carnivore, like me.

I give a lot of credit to the kid in the video's mother. She obviously has not dictated, but has seen the value in letting your children's curiosity run free, when it's safe. Her kid is probably more intelligent at two than a lot of ATS contributors are at 22.

--Haus

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Bam!

Can I have another Bam?

Why yes you can,

BAM!

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by j.r.c.b.
Wow, that's a really smart little boy!! How cool that his mom let him make his own choice!! I love that!! And I DO come from a meat eating family, but this was so precious!!

TY OP FOR POSTING.......

Really?

Your going to give your 2 yr. old kid choices about what he can eat?

Sorry but as a parent you tell your 2 yr. old kid what he will eat.

I hate liberal parents...not saying anything in regards to you but just in general.

All I can say is I did not give my children choices. My kids did not follow in my foot prints with their parenting and I now realize how RIGHT they were.
Their children learned faster, made better choices and never worked and waited for the leash to break, they turned out wonderful! I was wrong.

@The Redneck:

I'm rapidly losing patience with our inability to see eye to eye (or even really understand each others' communications as intended, apparently) , so I'm going to address a couple points before permanently excusing myself from this discussion.

Originally posted by TheRedneckI do take exception to your condescension of the poor and the characterization of those who choose to eat meat as "stupid." That is an elitist attitude that does nothing to promote your argument.

1- You take exception to my condescension of the poor and my characterizing those who eat meat as stupid?

Really, pal?




Re-read what I wrote again more carefully, please:

And I will concede, that if a person is too poor, or too stupid to create a healthful diet without meat, they should probably encourage their child to eat meat once in a while.

Take note of the word in the middle there which I've now emphasized for greater clarity. I was saying the only valid excuse I could see for "forcing" your child to eat meat against their moral will is if you're too poor. That just happened to appear in a compound sentence next to the only other "acceptable" reason to force a child to eat meat-- that other reason being if the person is question is too stupid to compile a diet that is healthy without animal protein. These two reasons have nothing to do with each other.

I come from a lower-middle class family, and my own income probably puts me in that range as well (if I'm lucky.) While it is true that there is some correlation between lack of education and poverty, that is not to say that poor people are stupid. I've known some really brilliant poor people, and some really moronic rich people. I'm am massively anti-corporatist to the point where some would probably call me socialist, or a commie (though I don't think I am.) Point being, I was saying nothing about the poor, except that they may not be able to easily afford a full compliment of amino acids without resorting to animal protein. Still following me? If so, care to explain how that's condescending to the poor, or had you misunderstood me?

On the other hand, someone who can't figure out how to construct a diet with complete amino acids, without animal protein, is in my opinion unrepentingly stupid and possibly deserving of scorn or ridicule. Maybe some unfortunate saps may meet both condition A (discussed above) as well as B, discussed here, but do not imagine for a moment that I was characterizing the poor as being anything other than, well, poor.

As for carnivores, I wasn't characterizing them as anything either. Some really intelligent people eat meat simply because they enjoy it. I'm not up on a moral high horse here. Go back to my first post in this thread and you will see that I also state this clearly. I eat meat. Pretty much daily. I do find it somewhat morally repugnant, but my wallet disagrees, and I'm in no position to judge one way or another. I wish factory farming were done differently, but I'm not out to judge anyone, nor trying to convert anyone to vegetarianism.

reply to post by TheRedneck



@ The Redneck:

Letting your child eat whatever they please? Of course not. I don't think anyone here is advocating that.

Actually, yes you are. By allowing a child to choose their diet on "moral grounds," you open the door to choices made exclusively by the child. Morals are particular to each individual. Can a child object to eating carrots on a moral basis? Sure! Potatoes? Of course! Rice? No problem, because only one person has full knowledge of the child's moral base: the child. You obviously believe eating meat is immoral, and as an adult that is completely fine for you. I support your endeavor to uphold your morality and wish you nothing but the best in doing so. What i do not support is the idea of enforcing your morality, your beliefs, your agenda on others who may have a differing view of what is moral and differing beliefs.

2- Your next point / argument is so completley ridiculous in my not-always-humble opinion, that it barely justifies a response. But since it constitutes a twisting of my own words, I'm sure you could understand why I feel compelled. Well, perhaps that wording was a bit strong-- you don't seem to understand much I say, for some reason. Before i thought it was conveniently selective. At this point I'm not so sure. So, please do read this carefully:

I am not.... I repeat, I am NOT advocating you allow a child to eat whatever they want. (And I really don't care what you say after this--- any comments to the contrary, I ask you to refer back to the above statement.) I am saying a child should not be forced to eat meat if they object on moral grounds. You can not have a moral objection to eating carrots. There is no evidence that carrots have consciousness or feelings. We do have such evidence for animals. Every healthy and normal person, every child, knows pretty much instinctively that killing is wrong. That hurting another creature is wrong. That is why murder is against every moral code and legal system on this planet through just about all of recorded history. Show me evidence that plants are conscious and feel pain when killed, and I may change what i say here.

But next time please don't tell me what I am and am not saying, when I'm stating it quite plainly, if you take the time to read and understand it properly (and really, there's nothing to deciper here. Read it once more, plain english: I am not advocating that. I said I wasn't, and I'm not. Stop trying to use cute arguments to stuff words in my mouth.)

Even worse, you use an obviously staged video using a child who is probably too young to even fully comprehend what they are saying to promote the agenda of forcing others into your moral mold.

I, by condemning this usage of a child to promote an agenda, am trying to force no one to live any particular way, other than declaring the use of this child to be shameful. You are using this child to try and force others into your belief system, evidenced not only by your continual pleas to change lifestyles, but by the aforementioned insulting characterizations.

Be the change you wish to be. When you have lived long enough and are healthy enough, promote your lifestyle using yourself as an example and others may well respond. Do not try and force others to be the change you want to be, as all that does is harden resolve against your arguments.

Final point: This passage, above, is where you truly take making ridiculous statements to an artform. Staged propaganda? How old do you think that child is? Old enough to memorize that many lines of text and speak them quite naturally? Talented little guy, I guess. Oscar nominee, by your estimation.

Just because you may not have been, yourself, and/or have not seen such a young child who is this intelligent, understanding, and inquisitive, at such a young age does not mean that they do not exist. I was such a child, and I have proof of it. But that's irrelevant. Such children exist, and it's kind of sad that you've never seen evidence of it. Even sadder that what you have seen, must have made you so cynical that children must be dumb little creatures with no ability to question moral issues, for you to consider them "normal."

It's funny that you talk about me "forcing" others to be the change I want to see, and "forcing" others to my views or ways. Cute way to turn the argument right around. I'm not "forcing" anything-- I'm merely sharing my opinions. Forcing is what you are advocating, and what you're doing to a child when you force them to eat dead flesh against their will. Which of us here is really the one who advocates "forcing" another's will?

The child looks like a pretty free spirit to me.

And you, sir, should read far more carefully, and assume far less. Better luck in the future.

if people won't switch from eating meat to plants based on animal suffering, then perhaps the suffering of their fellow man would change their minds.

we feed livestock enough grain to feed 800 million humans in america alone. goodby world hunger, oh wait....you'd rather enjoy a steak and let 25,000 humans starve to death EACH DAY than make the correct moral choice and forgo animal products to save lives.

there is no room for moral relativity on this issue. if you don't care about animals suffering and dying for your pleasure, why not at least care about humans starving to death?

supporting the meat industry directly supports 25,000 human deaths by starvation per day.

That video did nothing for me.

That octopus was already dead, chopped and fired. Not eating it means that it died in vain and that poor little boy not getting the necessary protein and nutrients essential to his developing brain.

If out bodies were not physiologically meant for meat consumption, then why would we possess the enzymes to digest it?

Originally posted by mandrake
That video did nothing for me.

That octopus was already dead, chopped and fired. Not eating it means that it died in vain and that poor little boy not getting the necessary protein and nutrients essential to his developing brain.

If out bodies were not physiologically meant for meat consumption, then why would we possess the enzymes to digest it?

Yes, obviously he's having brain development issues.

Sheesh.

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe

 

it. I am also of the mindset that we as humans are built to be omnivorous. We do not have these wonderful canines for ripping the meaty flesh of a tomato.

our canines are negligible - tiny little things, more suited to biting apples then ripping flesh.. Our mouths have far more molars for grinding grains and vegetables, just like our cousins the other apes.
Please refer to pictures earlier in thread

edit on 1-6-2013 by HelenConway because: (no reason given)

i've read the whole thread and your posts just don't make any sense. i'm talking about your church and christian statements.

i had about ten verses from the bible where God and Jesus said and gave, man the right to eat meat, Jesus even cooked some fish for peter for breakfast.

but then i saw the mod post and decided not to post them.

then reading the posts about apes, i'm not quite sure i understand you. are you saying apes don't eat meat.
if so, you so you are so very wrong.

chimpanzees, are some of the most vicious meat eating killers there are. they will kill and eat just about anything they can catch.
all you have to do is do a search and you can find some videos of then hunting in packs.

here's just one


there are even a couple that suggest that some males do it so they can woo the females for sex later on.

Originally posted by mandrake
That video did nothing for me.

That octopus was already dead, chopped and fired. Not eating it means that it died in vain and that poor little boy not getting the necessary protein and nutrients essential to his developing brain.

If out bodies were not physiologically meant for meat consumption, then why would we possess the enzymes to digest it?

our enzymes are capable of breaking down many things, practically anything organic.

your argument doesn't fly, because one could say "if our bodies were not physiologically meant to rape and kill, then why do we possess the ability to perform those actions".

there is a difference between being able to perform an action, and the moral consequences of that action.