meat

So you're saying they DO NOT think/care about us, right?
Well, I think it's your turn to be a little hypocritical here when you say this...

 

...I personally don't agree with Ideologue

 

What he said.

 

Do you know what hypocritical means?
How the hell was I being hypocritical...please explain...

 

I've got a question to you omnivores:

Why do you eat meat?Besides the fact that it tastes good
( I already know I'm gonna get crappy responses like: Animals are Made for us to eat,and other crap like that, which are irelivent (sp!). So don't bother posting that bull)

 

For an idea to be scientifically proven an there must be an experiment with repeatable results.So what is the experiment that can be performed.Also have you heard of the cholestrol lowering drug Cervastatin that was quickly withdrawn after its release? It proved to be downright dangerous.Some people became extreamly ill and others died from taking this medication that in theory should have done them the world of good.
See also
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8114&page=1&pp=10

 

yeah, diomedes!!! you rock!

idealoge has walked through some fields, and observed some pigs, and knows all there is to know about farming, right?

i think this is his main point, as always:

idealoge, you are one bitter young man. you need to spend less time in the fantasy world that is the internet. go get laid (don't forget to use a rubber!!!) - you'll feel better.

 

well, you took away our main response - it tastes good! so what kind of response are you looking for?

we eat meat because we want to, just as you don't eat meat because you don't want to. there's really no other reason, everything else is just justification to make each group "right".

i have no problem with non-meat eaters except for the fact that SOME of them are so similar in behavior to those christians that are newly 'born again' and are always witnessing - trying to convert me from my evil meateatin ways. some vegans are not trying to convert the rest of us to the elightened, non-meat way, and i'm more than glad to call quite a few of them my friends, and i always invite them to my parties where i make sure there is appropriate food for them. i don't even think of them as my "vegan friends" - i just know that in any group of people that i have over, at least a few will be not eating meat that day, sometimes because they are always a vegan, or they are cleansing, or trying to cut back on meat, so i cook something different for them.

we don't have to be divided. i never try to force my vegan friends to eat meat. damned if they don't always go for the bacon though....

 

It tastes good. Why the hell else would I eat it? Meat isn't altogether healthy (the deep fried, fast food kind I eat isn't healthy at least), and it doesn't make me happy, it just tastes good. Why eat anything besides bread and water if you aren't concerned with how food tastes?

 

In the first post you presume to know whether or not animals think about humans...and then in the other post you make fun of someone else for doing the same thing! =hypocrisy

 

Ok, I don't get this:

How exactly could we give animals more rights than us? And what rights are these?

 

Eating something because it tastes good is as good a reason as any.

 

Animal rights activists want to give animals legal rights, rights not to be eaten, worn, owned.....so on and so forth. For some reason they think that we have a moral obligation to give them the same considerations that we give our fellow man. There's a ton of information out there tamee, just careful what read.

 

Ok you still didn't answer my question.
I know that there are animal rights activists who want to give animals legal rights and what-not, but what you said was that they want to give animals more rights than humans. Now my question is how can that be and what rights are you talking about?
What right does a human not have that we could possibly give an animal?

 

Hardening of the arteries, or blocking them, is caused by build up of cholesterol (mostly). This condition is known as arteriosclerosis. It is as good as inevitable with most meat eaters. The pain and the premature death it brings to them, is well earned.

 

Sounds like nit-picking to me. But just to clarify, I meant that pigs as a whole are not a violent species. But do they eat their young all the time as you write? Odd then that they did not die out years ago. But this is all crap anyway and an insignificant side-step away from the main subject of this thread.

Do you mean that some pigs are not as severely abused and mistreated as other pigs?

Maybe you should analyse reality dude. Billions of animals killed and mistreated each and every single year by a race which should know better, and which does so without any thought or guilt, compassion, nor empathy. The human race systematically 'uses' animals in which ever way it pleases and thinks nothing of it, as if animals are just a commodity like oil, or bricks etc.



The situation with animals is far worse than the Nazi holocaust could every have been.

 

Do not confuse sentience with high intelligence. You obviously do not have a complete grasp on the word, despite my posting a clear definition of it.



Animals being their natural selves in their natural habitats engaging in the only ways which they know and are capable of knowing according to their mental and physical formation, are a far cry from the human situation. Humans have a higher intellectual potential. Humans are more cognizant, many anyway. Humans have technology and posses knowledge. Humans have a choice, animals do not.



Do you compare thee to a dumb animal?



"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way

it treats its animals. The more helpless a creature is, the more deserving

it is of protection by man, from the cruelty of man!"


- Ghandi.

 

In a comparison between animal suffering and human suffering, it is clear that the animals indeed suffer far more.

 

It is irrelevant whether or not individual animals 'care' for humans. The fact remains that they are capable of feeling pain. Humans have the choice whether or not to inflict suffering.

 

Establishing whether one is speaking of facts or bullshit beliefs is highly relevant to any discussion.

I can show you more truth than a priest can, fool.

Hopefully the quote below explains my original point to you in a slightly better way than I have tried to previously:



"There can be no question that more hunger can be alleviated with a given quantity of grain by completely eliminating animals [from the food production process]. About 2,000 pounds of concentrates [grains] must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain (corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, etc.) eaten directly will support a person for a year. Thus, a given quantity of grain eaten directly will feed 5 times as many people as it will if it is first fed to livestock and then is eaten indirectly by humans in the form of livestock products...."

--M. E. Ensminger, Ph.D., internationally recognized animal agriculture specialist, former Department of Animal Science Chairman at Washington State University, currently President of Consultants- Agriservices, Clovis, California



Source.

Yes, to a moron such as yourself, simple logic would seem retarded.



If you could read with any degree of accuracy, you would have read the word 'unnecessary'. Quite a significant omission you made there.



Go back. Re-read (or indeed read) my posts. Then if you feel the need to, submit a reply.



Posting replies to posts which you have either not read, or not understood is an idiotic thing to do. morons like yourself give the internet a bad name.