[Retro]

Originally posted by RatedG²

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...inin-died-out/

And they say it's "not natural".

[UnusualBoy]

Originally posted by RatedG²

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...inin-died-out/

Read ha sis

[Retro]

Originally posted by Miracle Whip

I'm done with this thread.

At the end of the day most of the facts agree that humans eating meat is not natural , I can sleep well at night knowing that a defenceless animal hasn't died for me because it tastes good.

You're still wrong about it being unnatural, and I can sleep well at night without it relying on what I ate. Good day.

[daisy_]

hopefully

[MissedTheTrain]

Originally posted by Miracle Whip

I'm so SICK of people acting like we are the most important things on this planet when we are actually one of the worst things to ever happen to the planet

All over living creatures have been here a lot longer than us and you can sure as hell bet that they are going to still be here after us

I can't wait till we all die out and the earth can finally start to heal

Humans are the most important lives on this planet though

[TikiMiss]

Originally posted by MissedTheTrain

Humans are the most important lives on this planet though

Not when humans singlehandedly cause the most negatives and destruction to the planet

It's not whales or pigs that are destroying our ozone layer and causing mass extinctions. It's us. If we all died, the World would be a MUCH better place.

[Nano]

Originally posted by Retro

And they say it's "not natural".

From the article he posted:

However, just because a meatier diet was good for our early Homo forbearers does not necessarily it will keep each of us contemporary humans alive longer. Now that we no longer have to fend for ourselves in quite the same way, increased red meat consumption has actually been linked to shorter individual life spans. So next time you're flummoxed by food choices, don't be afraid to go a little Paranthropus and hit the salad bar.

And the fact is we don't need meat to survive in this day and age. But I can see from this post:

And by the way, I'm sorry, but I don't particularly care about that cow dying or that chicken getting beheaded. Paint me as a horrible person as I know you will, but it tastes good, provides me an easily accessible source of nutrients (regardless of whether I cook it), and goes will with cheese. That's all I have to say on the "ethics" of this subject.

That you don't care about that.

[Retro]

Originally posted by TikiMiss

Not when humans singlehandedly cause the most negatives and destruction to the planet

It's not whales or pigs that are destroying our ozone layer and causing mass extinctions. It's us. If we all died, the World would be a MUCH better place.

Very true, but that's a separate issue. I think they were leaning more toward the natural and logical self-preservation angle. If we did die, there's no doubt the world would probably be better off.

[MissedTheTrain]

Originally posted by Retro

Humans don't need to cook meat to digest it, obtain nutrients, or even to kill all the organisms that pose a threat to us. You are spreading myths and fallacies perpetuated by vegan and vegetarian groups to skew things toward themselves.



http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1027

As you can see there, it's pretty common for animals that don't cook their food to become sick, and contract parasites, and whatever. We're not that special.

Your first quote assumes that for some reason, a human in nature would leave a dead fish out in the open for hours; spoiler alert, we wouldn't! We'd eat it!

Your second blatantly ignores scientific study on human tooth structure.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l#.VY7ory5Viko

And finally, you continue to disregard the fact that, without cooked meat as a historical food source, you would not be capable of even typing these arguments or having them in the first place.

Don't skew things.

Oop.

[Retro]

Originally posted by Nano

From the article he posted:

And the fact is we don't need meat to survive in this day and age. But I can see from this post:

That you don't care about that.

This is true. I don't care. Your ethical reasoning is different from mine and is pseudo-Kantian in nature; I am more of an ethical egoist. You're not going to win this argument, because if we're talking ethics, there are no "winners." I'd advise you to give up on that front.

[ᴇʀᴏs]

Originally posted by Retro

I've provided my scientific arguments, and they are solid. I'm now telling you that I do not ethically equate an animal's life to yours or mine, and particularly not when it allows us to stay alive to eat said animal. The fact that it tastes good? Added bonus. The only thing that's clear is that everyone here wants to be right, but not everyone really can.

For all that science, you're forgetting the part that explains that our bodies don't inherently need meat to survive. Any nutrients our bodies get from meat (protein, iron, etc.) can be attained from plants. Literally the one and only exception is vitamin B12, which is still easily attained through vegan means. Because there's quite literally no need to consume or use animals or products that come from them, why do we continue to do so? Sure, you could argue all day that it's easier to adsorb nutrients from meat, that animals don't feel pain, that a higher power put them here for us, etcetera (all of which are highly contestable), but at the end of the day, when you can live happy and healthy excluding all meat from your diet, is it really worth it to even risk the suffering of innocent animals, to risk denying food to humans who are literally starving because you fed said food to farm animals, to risk the continued destruction of our decaying environment, and to risk your own health at the hands of saturated fat, cholesterol, and other harmful things stemming from meat, all for a burger, a chicken nugget, or a steak, among many other things? Really think about it. You seem like a logical person, and this is highly, highly illogical.

[- JED -]

As I said in my last post Homo Habilis survived thanks to eating meat which led to brain development and evolution of the specie, that's where we come from. Boiseis were vegetarian and could not survive the lack of plants (due to environmental changes when jungle turned into sabana...)

[Nano]

Originally posted by Retro

This is true. I don't care. Your ethical reasoning is different from mine and is pseudo-Kantian in nature; I am more of an ethical egoist. You're not going to win this argument, because if we're talking ethics, there are no "winners." I'd advise you to give up on that front.

The argument that we don't need meat to survive isn't an ethical one.

[Retro]

Originally posted by TheNight

For all that science, you're forgetting the part that explains that our bodies don't inherently need meat to survive. Any nutrients our bodies get from meat (protein, iron, etc.) can be attained from plants. Literally the one and only exception is vitamin B12, which is still easily attained through vegan means. Because there's quite literally no need to consume or use animals or products that come from them, why do we continue to do so? Sure, you could argue all day that it's easier to adsorb nutrients from meat, that animals don't feel pain, that a higher power put them here for us, etcetera (all of which are highly contestable), but at the end of the day, when you can live happy and healthy excluding all meat from your diet, is it really worth it to even risk the suffering of innocent animals, to risk denying food to humans who are literally starving because you fed said food to farm animals, to risk the continued destruction of our decaying environment, and to risk your own health at the hands of saturated fat, cholesterol, and other harmful things stemming from meat, all for a burger, a chicken nugget, or a steak, among many other things? Really think about it. You seem like a logical person, and this is highly, highly illogical.

As I have made ABUNDANTLY clear, I'm not arguing whether we need it because I don't care; I'm arguing whether it's natural. I'm not talking about higher powers, and I'm not talking about whether animals feel pain. We can raise livestock on food that humans would not or could not naturally eat, so denying food to others is just not necessary for meat. Raising livestock does not inherently destroy our environment, and particularly not with modern science's steps toward environmental preservation. Risking my own health is my business. Literally nothing I am saying is illogical. I'm arguing it is natural and acceptable; you are arguing it is not necessary. These are very different ideas.

[Retro]

Originally posted by Nano

The argument that we don't need meat to survive isn't an ethical one.

I'm not arguing whether we do or don't need it, though. You're arguing that BECAUSE we don't need it, we shouldn't eat it. I disagree. That's ethical.

[Chill Bill]

Originally posted by TheNight

Ddd this is about as weak and cringe worthy as entering a Gaga thread just to write "nose" or "hermaphrodite". C'mon sis, I know you can do better.

Oh wait, no, you can't, because you're argument is absolutely baseless and will always fall back on the ******** logic that "it tastes good".

Well, it obviously got you bothered, so mission accomplished

[MissedTheTrain]

Originally posted by TikiMiss

Not when humans singlehandedly cause the most negatives and destruction to the planet

It's not whales or pigs that are destroying our ozone layer and causing mass extinctions. It's us. If we all died, the World would be a MUCH better place.

That's by peoples' own doing. At the root of it though, humans are the most valuable species on the Earth. We have the highest mental capacity and basically run the world. No other organism is capable of what we are capable of.

What species do you think are more valuable than humans?

[Nano]

Originally posted by Chill Bill

Well, it obviously got you bothered, so mission accomplished

Even edgier. 4th grade humor teas.

[MissedTheTrain]

Originally posted by Retro

Very true, but that's a separate issue. I think they were leaning more toward the natural and logical self-preservation angle. If we did die, there's no doubt the world would probably be better off.

Exactly. At the root of our existence, we aren't doing any damage.

[ᴇʀᴏs]

Originally posted by Chill Bill

Well, it obviously got you bothered, so mission accomplished

Careful, don't cut yourself with that edge!

OT: I think this thread has made it abundantly clear that it will never be illegal, at least not in our lifetime. People just don't care about the truth.