Carnivores – why?

1…1920222425

Replies

  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    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.
  • amivox
    amivox Posts: 441 Member
    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
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    You know what this thread needs???

    tumblr_m5twpw28eH1rrqg8z.gif
  • callmeBAM
    callmeBAM Posts: 445 Member
    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.
  • callmeBAM
    callmeBAM Posts: 445 Member
    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???
  • susannamarie
    susannamarie Posts: 2,148 Member
    The multi-multi-quotes make this thread so hard to read.
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,576 Member
    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.
  • susiebear29
    susiebear29 Posts: 266
    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?!!
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    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).
  • amivox
    amivox Posts: 441 Member
    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.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,901 Member
    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.
    Because there is NOTHING that tastes like BACON!!!!

    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 nutrition
  • cyberskirt
    cyberskirt Posts: 218
    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.
  • carld256
    carld256 Posts: 855 Member
    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.
  • bigdawg025
    bigdawg025 Posts: 774 Member
    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???
  • _VoV
    _VoV Posts: 1,494 Member
    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.
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,576 Member
    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.
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    I eat meat because it is delicious.
  • odusgolp
    odusgolp Posts: 10,477 Member
    I eat meat because it is delicious.

    I'm Meat. Nice to meet you. :blushing:
  • Sidesteal
    Sidesteal Posts: 5,510 Member
    I eat meat because it is delicious.

    I'm Meat. Nice to meet you. :blushing:

    Hahaha.... Nicely done =)


    Step into my office please.
  • doorki
    doorki Posts: 2,576 Member
    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.

Categories