Carnivores – why?
Replies
-
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
With a nervous system.
That seems rather Speciest of you. So, to you, anything that does not perceive the world as you do is fair game. Interesting.
When you make statements like this, it's very difficult to take this discussion very seriously.
Why? Is it not accurate that if a plant fights to survive by seeking sustenance and defending itself from predation that it does have a right to live?
I'm sorry, but again--every pound of meat means an animal has processed at least two pounds of plants for you. Address that point.
I addressed it earlier. I am not the one who has a problem being in the food chain. Things die to feed other things.
Okay. I'm ending this discussion then. When you argue a point--such as showing concern over plant 'pain'--you should at least think it matters. Off to do something more interesting.0 -
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
Pretty sure for anyone sane, the line is drawn at plants.
Let's explore this, then. Why is the line drawn at plants? Is it because they are the lowest on the food chain or is there another reason?
http://tabish.freeshell.org/animals/plantpain.html0 -
You know what this thread needs???
0 -
To summarize, it looks like people here eat meat because of:
1. Taste
2. Convenience
3. High protein content
4. Habit
Nothing new, really.
you forgot "entitlement" or the classic "because we can" attitude. it's not very inventive, but it sure is persistent.
Thank you. Yes. All these reasons are self-serving.
And there go the veggies judging again. Always devolves to this.0 -
contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings." --William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology
Then, why do our bodies MAKE cholesterol???0 -
The multi-multi-quotes make this thread so hard to read.0
-
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
With a nervous system.
That seems rather Speciest of you. So, to you, anything that does not perceive the world as you do is fair game. Interesting.
When you make statements like this, it's very difficult to take this discussion very seriously.
Why? Is it not accurate that if a plant fights to survive by seeking sustenance and defending itself from predation that it does have a right to live?
I'm sorry, but again--every pound of meat means an animal has processed at least two pounds of plants for you. Address that point.
I addressed it earlier. I am not the one who has a problem being in the food chain. Things die to feed other things.
Okay. I'm ending this discussion then. When you argue a point--such as showing concern over plant 'pain'--you should at least think it matters. Off to do something more interesting.
I am refuting your point by showing the eventual flaw in your argument that something must die to sustain you. So, at some point, you must kill something to eat. You just choose to draw the line lower down the food chain but it makes you no more superior than your omnivorous fellow humans.0 -
oh my goodness this seemed to start out as quite a civilised discussion but appears to have now turned into a battle of egos?! I believe every person is entitled to eat whatever they choose and should not have to justify this to anybody, I don't understand why this has turned into an arguement?!! The most important point (in my view) seems to have been missed (although I must admit I have not read every page as I don't have that much time on my hands!!) which is the welfare of the animals while they are alive?!! surely that is more important than the reasons to eat meat/not eat meat?!!0
-
To summarize, it looks like people here eat meat because of:
1. Taste
2. Convenience
3. High protein content
4. Habit
Nothing new, really.
you forgot "entitlement" or the classic "because we can" attitude. it's not very inventive, but it sure is persistent.
Thank you. Yes. All these reasons are self-serving.
And there go the veggies judging again. Always devolves to this.
I meant the term 'self-serving' to mean all those things serve the self (and not something else). If you read anything more into it, maybe you have a guilty conscience (as my mother used to say).0 -
You, sir, have become absurd in your argument. I guess what I am trying to say is, I have no moral objections to eating plants. Good day.0
-
Because there is NOTHING that tastes like BACON!!!!Ok, I am probably going to offend some, but it’s not my intention.
However, I just don't get it. There has never been a good argument presented to me why someone would want to eat a dead animal. I figure because whenever I ask “why”, the silly carnivores almost always get offended.
So why?
And please remove all of the “I like my meat rare” answers. That stuff is just nasty.
The End.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Did you know that if a Giraffe grazes too long on a tree, the tree signals other trees in the vicinity to tell them that a predator is threatening them and the other trees produce a toxin to protect themselves.. because of this Giraffe's learn not to graze for any long period of time at any one tree.
In studies done, several plants were together in a room when one was 'mauled' by a scientist, the other plants reacted to this and continued to do so whenever this particular person came into the room.
Studies have shown that plants feel pain and react to danger. Also, plants are still ALIVE when eaten. So moral arguments regarding vegetarianism has always made me chuckle.
As vegetarianism has become more common place, has anyone noticed that more and more people are developing allergies to alternatives to meats? such as soy and nuts?....
There is an argument out there by scientists that states our most recent evolutions were triggered by us eating meat. our brains/intelligence grew because we added meat to our diet.
If anything, if we are going to make arguments about diet, given that we've been eating meat for what? a million years? since we essentially began as hunter/gatherers... lets discuss the whole grain thing... as that is much more recent and more likely the cause of disease that people are eager to blame meat for... just sayin'.
I guess I'm a bit biased, I mean, I'm in Canada, we have Inuit here, who thrived on a diet of meat for 40,000 years with little to no disease... but also had no grain in their diet.... with only plants entering into the equation during the short-lived summers.
Also, humans aren't carnivores and never have been.0 -
Lol. Did anyone else realize this is an exact copy of vegetarians..why?
Its pretty common on here - one thread starts and shortly after another voicing the total opposite opinion will appear.
Yes, and it should honestly be locked just like the other one was.0 -
To summarize, it looks like people here eat meat because of:
1. Taste
2. Convenience
3. High protein content
4. Habit
Nothing new, really.
you forgot "entitlement" or the classic "because we can" attitude. it's not very inventive, but it sure is persistent.
The best part of all of this is that I don't HAVE to eat like you "because I can". I am not hurting you or anyone else by eating my meat. I happen to enjoy it... a nice big juicy burger fresh off the grill. I do not want to eat veggie burgers or tofurkey. YUCK! I'm not judging you for being vegitarian or vegan... so why do you feel the need to judge the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY who do choose to eat meat???0 -
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
With a nervous system.
That seems rather Speciest of you. So, to you, anything that does not perceive the world as you do is fair game. Interesting.
When you make statements like this, it's very difficult to take this discussion very seriously.
Why? Is it not accurate that if a plant fights to survive by seeking sustenance and defending itself from predation that it does have a right to live?
I'm sorry, but again--every pound of meat means an animal has processed at least two pounds of plants for you. Address that point.
I addressed it earlier. I am not the one who has a problem being in the food chain. Things die to feed other things.
Okay. I'm ending this discussion then. When you argue a point--such as showing concern over plant 'pain'--you should at least think it matters. Off to do something more interesting.
I am refuting your point by showing the eventual flaw in your argument that something must die to sustain you. So, at some point, you must kill something to eat. You just choose to draw the line lower down the food chain but it makes you no more superior than your omnivorous fellow humans.
I never said I was 'superior', so don't put words in my mouth. Fine. Be happy if you think you 'won' and showed me up to be a hypocrite. That was your desire. I've been a vegetarian longer than you've been alive, and I will continue to be because it doesn't require me to ask a slaughterhouse worker to kill an animal for me. Be happy in your feeling of 'victory.' Again, peace.0 -
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
Pretty sure for anyone sane, the line is drawn at plants.
Let's explore this, then. Why is the line drawn at plants? Is it because they are the lowest on the food chain or is there another reason?
http://tabish.freeshell.org/animals/plantpain.html
I find it odd that is latest work in the citation table is a book published in 1989 and one other points to 19th century medicine.
He also makes no notes about how plants can and do seek out food and sustenance by both turning their bodies and defending their territory.0 -
I eat meat because it is delicious.0
-
I eat meat because it is delicious.
I'm Meat. Nice to meet you. :blushing:0 -
I eat meat because it is delicious.
I'm Meat. Nice to meet you. :blushing:
Hahaha.... Nicely done
Step into my office please.0 -
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
With a nervous system.
That seems rather Speciest of you. So, to you, anything that does not perceive the world as you do is fair game. Interesting.
When you make statements like this, it's very difficult to take this discussion very seriously.
Why? Is it not accurate that if a plant fights to survive by seeking sustenance and defending itself from predation that it does have a right to live?
I'm sorry, but again--every pound of meat means an animal has processed at least two pounds of plants for you. Address that point.
I addressed it earlier. I am not the one who has a problem being in the food chain. Things die to feed other things.
Okay. I'm ending this discussion then. When you argue a point--such as showing concern over plant 'pain'--you should at least think it matters. Off to do something more interesting.
I am refuting your point by showing the eventual flaw in your argument that something must die to sustain you. So, at some point, you must kill something to eat. You just choose to draw the line lower down the food chain but it makes you no more superior than your omnivorous fellow humans.
I never said I was 'superior', so don't put words in my mouth. Fine. Be happy if you think you 'won' and showed me up to be a hypocrite. That was your desire. I've been a vegetarian longer than you've been alive, and I will continue to be because it doesn't require me to ask a slaughterhouse worker to kill an animal for me. Be happy in your feeling of 'victory.' Again, peace.
You have constantly implied superiority and your husband has outright stated it rather aggressively. I have no problem with vegetarians but I do not agree that it is the only way to go, nor do I believe that it is the best way to go. Have a good evening.0 -
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
Pretty sure for anyone sane, the line is drawn at plants.
Let's explore this, then. Why is the line drawn at plants? Is it because they are the lowest on the food chain or is there another reason?
http://tabish.freeshell.org/animals/plantpain.html
I find it odd that is latest work in the citation table is a book published in 1989 and one other points to 19th century medicine.
He also makes no notes about how plants can and do seek out food and sustenance by both turning their bodies and defending their territory.
Dude, you should be a lawyer. Congratulations, I already gave up ^^^^ way up there ^^^^ when I said I have no moral objections to eating plants. I think that its silly because we have to eat something. They have no nervous system. They are tasty. I am eating raw onions right now and feeling superior and full of flatulence. Hooray! (Please, please note the sarcasm, because I know some people won't if I don't point it out for what it is, which is sad, because sarcasm is much more fun when you don't have to explain it.)
The End. I am hungry and this got boring.0 -
I eat meat because it is delicious.
I'm Meat. Nice to meet you. :blushing:
Hahaha.... Nicely done
Step into my office please.
On my way!!!0 -
WHY DO I HAVE TO DEFEND MY LIFE CHOICES TO YOU!?! WE SHOULD ALL JUST KEEP TO OURSELVES AND NOT TRY TO UNDERSTAND OTHER PEOPLE'S POINT OF VIEW!
I agree0 -
*thud*0
-
this thread is fun.
i eat meat for the same reason i eat *****.
it tastes great and really satisfies.0 -
No, I am trying to get to the bottom of a flawed argument that leads followers to deem themselves morally superior. I find it interesting that you would leave rather than actually attempt to logically work out the discussion and defend your stance.
I cannot answer for the person you were quoting. But personally, I do not feel morally superior in any way. I do not eat meat because it makes ME feel better about MYSELF, not feel that I am better than anyone else.
(Caps for emphasis not because I am shouting!!)
Edited to fix quote
I don't feel morally superior, either, so I don't know where this person got that from. I just don't eat meat because it is what makes me happy and ok with my food decisions. I don't think I am better than anyone. I know I have plenty of other things that people would probably find morally objective about me.
I am not going to lie. I do feel morally superior. And healthier.
Glad you feel healthier than someone you have never met. I find your discussion style rather aggressive and judgemental. Is this going to be an exchange of ideas or you just sniping comments?
I am happy to exchange idea. In the realm of vegetarianism, ideas on diet are based on studies, like the China Study, the Framingham Study, the German Vegetarian study and about a thousand more. Anything unsupported by science is mere opinion.
Now I also assumed that when you said you wanted a discussion, you wanted an honest discussion. Honestly I feel morally superior to meat eaters. I could lie and be politically correct, and I will if it makes you feel more comfortable, but I can eat and survive without killing a sentient feeling being. I am superior.
I know that is going to convince no one, but at least I am being honest. What SHOULD convince you are the hundreds of studies done on diets that demonstrate that meat is implicated in chronic diseases and shorter life span. Humans are a vegetarian species. We are not meant to eat meat. There is ample evidence for that.
When did humans become a vegetarian species? I seem to remember reading books about the hunter-gatherers of prehistory. Do you think that prehistoric man would have gone through the danger of hunting large game if they could get everything they needed from plants?
Difference between herbovore, carnivore and human:
Anatomically and physiologically, people are herbivores.
Facial Muscles
Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore: Well-developed
Human: Well-developed
Jaw Type
Carnivore: Angle not expanded
Herbivore: Expanded angle
Human: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore: On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars
Human: Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore: Temporalis
Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids
Human: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
Carnivore: Large
Herbivore: Small
Human: Small
Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore: Short and pointed
Herbivore: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Human: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore: Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Human: Short and blunted
Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Human: Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
Carnivore: None; swallows food whole
Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary
Human: Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
Carnivore: No digestive enzymes
Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach
Carnivore: Simple
Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers
Human: Simple
Stomach Acidity
Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Human: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Human: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length
Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length
Human: 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated
Human: Long, sacculated
Liver
Carnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidneys
Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine
Human: Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
Carnivore: Sharp claws
Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Human: Flattened nails
Anatomically and physiologically, people are herbivores.
When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings." --William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology
basically, all you have pointed to is that humans have the ability to eat plants, much like an omnivore. But you did not answer my question about when humans became vegetarian and why would prehistoric humans take such a risk hunting large game?
NO, humans not only have the ability to eat plants, they are DESIGNED to eat plants. That is why we get chronic diseases when we eat meat. You cannot show me one study that shows humans get chronic diseases from eating plants.0 -
Dear Vegetarians:
Hate to break it to you... but plants are living things too!
Oh good lord.....this is the best you can do?
^^ Is THIS the best YOU can do?
First, pick a tomato. Then, run down a wild boar, wrestle it to the ground, and fight it to the death. Now, let's compare those two experiences.
So you would prefer to feed on the reproductive organs of a helpless plant rather than allow a creature to fight or its life?
Are you deliberately trying not to understand my point?
Are you deliberately trying to evade the point that plants are living things as well? So it is no less humane to kill an animal than harvest plants.
You forget that it takes at least 2 pounds of plant food to create a single pound of meat (some estimates are much higher). Therefore, if your heart bleeds for plants, you are causing double the 'pain' due to your food choice. But truly, I doubt if you would put the 'suffering' of plants on the order you do of animals, that you aren't being at all serious. I cut my teeth on this argument as a young vegetarian 40 years ago, so you aren't being as original as you may think you are being.
I am fully conscious of my place in the world as an omnivore so my heart does not bleed for the food chain. But, new studies in the physiology of plants have come out in the last 40 years that may change your views on sentience and how it relates to the plant world. If your vegetarian/veganism is based on the moral argument that it is cruel to feed on living, sentient creatures, then logic dictates that you must expand this to plant life as well.
Really? Could you give me cite to at least ONE of these many studies? Since plants don't have nervous systems, I really want to see this. I've only read two pages of this but already I have seen the usual dumb arguments.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=3&em
Here is the article in the NYT that was part of the earlier part of the discussion.
The New York Times is not a scientific journal and is frequently full of drivel. Kindly refer me to a STUDY that shows plants feel pain.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/29/10033.full.pdf+html?sid=f78311f9-74dc-4ef7-a8a6-0993bb8ae907
I read the abstract of this article. It has NOTHING to do with plants feeling pain. It concerns adoptive evolutionary strategies, nothing more.
What do you think pain is other than our body telling us to react to negative stimuli?
If you really think this way, then you must presume that atoms and molecules feel pain because they react to negative stimuli. A neutron will react to an electron. Does this mean we should eat nothing? You know what? WE SHOULDN"T EVEN BREATHE, man. The air is made up of particles that react negatively to my human presence. I disperse them! yeesh... Plants don't have a nervous system or a brain. They don't feel pain in the sense that a mammal or a bird does.
I have no problem with my place in this world so I am fine with it. Plants operate to defend themselves, much like birds, fish, mammals and insects. Where is the line drawn?
Pretty sure for anyone sane, the line is drawn at plants.
Let's explore this, then. Why is the line drawn at plants? Is it because they are the lowest on the food chain or is there another reason?
http://tabish.freeshell.org/animals/plantpain.html
I find it odd that is latest work in the citation table is a book published in 1989 and one other points to 19th century medicine.
He also makes no notes about how plants can and do seek out food and sustenance by both turning their bodies and defending their territory.
Dude, you should be a lawyer. Congratulations, I already gave up ^^^^ way up there ^^^^ when I said I have no moral objections to eating plants. I think that its silly because we have to eat something. They have no nervous system. They are tasty. I am eating raw onions right now and feeling superior and full of flatulence. Hooray! (Please, please note the sarcasm, because I know some people won't if I don't point it out for what it is, which is sad, because sarcasm is much more fun when you don't have to explain it.)
The End. I am hungry and this got boring.
Have a good and windy night 0 -
because it tastes good and i like it0
-
No, I am trying to get to the bottom of a flawed argument that leads followers to deem themselves morally superior. I find it interesting that you would leave rather than actually attempt to logically work out the discussion and defend your stance.
I cannot answer for the person you were quoting. But personally, I do not feel morally superior in any way. I do not eat meat because it makes ME feel better about MYSELF, not feel that I am better than anyone else.
(Caps for emphasis not because I am shouting!!)
Edited to fix quote
I don't feel morally superior, either, so I don't know where this person got that from. I just don't eat meat because it is what makes me happy and ok with my food decisions. I don't think I am better than anyone. I know I have plenty of other things that people would probably find morally objective about me.
I am not going to lie. I do feel morally superior. And healthier.
Glad you feel healthier than someone you have never met. I find your discussion style rather aggressive and judgemental. Is this going to be an exchange of ideas or you just sniping comments?
I am happy to exchange idea. In the realm of vegetarianism, ideas on diet are based on studies, like the China Study, the Framingham Study, the German Vegetarian study and about a thousand more. Anything unsupported by science is mere opinion.
Now I also assumed that when you said you wanted a discussion, you wanted an honest discussion. Honestly I feel morally superior to meat eaters. I could lie and be politically correct, and I will if it makes you feel more comfortable, but I can eat and survive without killing a sentient feeling being. I am superior.
I know that is going to convince no one, but at least I am being honest. What SHOULD convince you are the hundreds of studies done on diets that demonstrate that meat is implicated in chronic diseases and shorter life span. Humans are a vegetarian species. We are not meant to eat meat. There is ample evidence for that.
When did humans become a vegetarian species? I seem to remember reading books about the hunter-gatherers of prehistory. Do you think that prehistoric man would have gone through the danger of hunting large game if they could get everything they needed from plants?
Difference between herbovore, carnivore and human:
Anatomically and physiologically, people are herbivores.
Facial Muscles
Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Herbivore: Well-developed
Human: Well-developed
Jaw Type
Carnivore: Angle not expanded
Herbivore: Expanded angle
Human: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
Carnivore: On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars
Human: Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
Carnivore: Temporalis
Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids
Human: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
Carnivore: Large
Herbivore: Small
Human: Small
Teeth (Incisors)
Carnivore: Short and pointed
Herbivore: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Human: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth (Canines)
Carnivore: Long, sharp and curved
Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Human: Short and blunted
Teeth (Molars)
Carnivore: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Human: Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
Carnivore: None; swallows food whole
Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary
Human: Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
Carnivore: No digestive enzymes
Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach
Carnivore: Simple
Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers
Human: Simple
Stomach Acidity
Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
Herbivore: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Human: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Human: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length
Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length
Human: 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated
Human: Long, sacculated
Liver
Carnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivore: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidneys
Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine
Human: Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
Carnivore: Sharp claws
Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Human: Flattened nails
Anatomically and physiologically, people are herbivores.
When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings." --William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology
basically, all you have pointed to is that humans have the ability to eat plants, much like an omnivore. But you did not answer my question about when humans became vegetarian and why would prehistoric humans take such a risk hunting large game?
NO, humans not only have the ability to eat plants, they are DESIGNED to eat plants. That is why we get chronic diseases when we eat meat. You cannot show me one study that shows humans get chronic diseases from eating plants.
Are you going to keep avoiding the prehistoric humans question?0 -
Because I am a card carrying member of P.E.T.A - People Eating Tasty Animals!!!! :smokin:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions