Carnivores – why?

amivox

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

THIS, this, so much THIS!

_VoV

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.

amivox

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.

_VoV

To summarize, it looks like people here eat meat because of:

1. Taste
2. Convenience
3. High protein content
4. Habit

Nothing new, really.

SunKissed1989

I eat meat mostly because I like the taste of meat. There are other reasons too, but I do love the taste of meat...mmm, meat *licks lips*

anyway...yeah, that's why I eat meat

amivox

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.

Holy crap, I think I just died laughing.

kayemme

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.

_VoV

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.

Holy crap, I think I just died laughing.

^^One less meateater on the planet then, I guess.

amivox

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.

Holy crap, I think I just died laughing.

^^One less meateater on the planet then, I guess.

I don't eat meat. I was laughing because you.. nvmd.

Your Head ______ The funniness of your statement ''''''''''''''''''''''''''

_VoV

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.

doorki

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?

doorki

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.

There is that sense of superiority again.

amivox

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?

ok, so if you have mold growing in your house or on your food, you just leave it, right? Because the mold has a right to live...

_VoV

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.

doorki

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?

doorki

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.

zcomsto

Because killing and eating humans is illegal (immoral maybe?). We SETTLE for animals...

_VoV

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.

There is that sense of superiority again.

In what way do these reasons (AS LISTED) serve something beyond the individual's interests?

doorki

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?

ok, so if you have mold growing in your house or on your food, you just leave it, right? Because the mold has a right to live...

No, I kill it. But I am not the one who has a moral problem with killing lesser creatures. Mold has to die because it could adversely effect my habitat and my progeny.

doorki

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.

There is that sense of superiority again.

In what way do these reasons (AS LISTED) serve something beyond the individual's interests?

Read this whole quote block and then try to tell me honestly that you were not placing negatives on those reasons in both your context and your intent.

ETA: Your being vegan/vegetarian serves your desire to feel good about yourself. Humans are self serving creatures.