0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I was not the original poster or title chooser of this topic & have actually said that I disagree with the method the original poster used to start & sustain it. I also disagree with his reasons for being pescatarian (someone who eats sea-based life, but generally not land - though some may eat chickens, there is no real specific word for eating chickens & sea-based life, besides perhaps flexitarian, which is so broad it means nothing) which seem to be based on, or appeal to religious ideas, at least in part. Mine are based on secular ethics which scientists can appreciate, drawing comparisons to the rights movement against slavery, since it is a poignant example.Continue insulting me without reading what I have said & I will report you to the moderators.I am almost finished replying.Edit: added "& sustain" for clarity, & provided an explanation of pescatarian, & of the motivation of SBCs beliefs
Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.
It seems to me that essentially, you are arguing against the reality that has resulted from the evolution of life on Earth, based upon boundaries between different levels of life that are purely arbitrary.
You are arguing about what should have happened, instead of what actually happened as a consequence of evolution, using arbitrary delimiters to make the argument sound reasonable.
The fact is that we have evolved to desire meat in our diets, and as we have become more civilised, we have tried to satisfy that desire in the best overall way; farming meat means that extra animals are bred to meet our needs, instead of hunting from the natural pool of animals, and so don't risk hunting them to extinction as nearly happened with the North American Bison.
You also seem to base your argument upon the basis of an organism's capability to experience what you have defined as pleasure and it seems to me that you're using an arbitrary point on a scale of sentience to define pleasure. Are the smallest mammals, or fish, capable of feeling 'pleasure'?
Would it be ok to farm voles and shrews for meat then? Is fish farming ok?
It's sad that the head of a goat on a plate traumatized you so much as a kid, but that's no excuse to insult fellow humans because of your personal preferences. Perhaps you should seek a therapy to relieve you from that, understandably, traumatic event. But don't make your own belief system some kind of moral standard, it's clearly not.
just keep in mind that plants will generate a lot of toxins when killed, and if you only eat vegan, then good luck in not getting sick very early
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes.ADA’s position and accompanying paper were written by Winston Craig, PhD, MPH, RD, professor and chair of the department of nutrition and wellness at Andrews University; and Reed Mangels, PhD, RD, nutrition advisor at the Vegetarian Resource Group, Baltimore, Md....Vegetarian diets are often associated with health advantages including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, according to ADA’s position. “Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet.”
cattle meat is murder
Hi all, while I can understand that some people have scruples eating animals, my opinion is that it is a purely personal decision not to eat them. To me it has no moral/environmental justification.
..Use of science to show humans are more worthy of living than animals..
you choose to kill plants, I choose to kill animals, so that makes you morally better than me? Clearly not, we're both "killers".
Please, inform yourself better about diabetes, perhaps then you can make qualified comments about this metabolic imbalance, instead of stating ignorant (in the sense of not having knowledge of...) opinions.
I stand by my point, veganism is detrimental for the human organism and it has nothing to do with morals, to live you have to kill or harm, and to me it doesn't matter if you kill an onion or a rabbit. Life is life.
I've asked this question before and didn't get an answer and I doubt I'll be seeing one anytime soon. But just for the sake of argument, I'll ask it again. Where do we draw the line?