Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

reply to post by watcher73


Oh i read it and the article states clearly that vegans had a 92% rate of difficiency so that is greater than meat eaters is it not? In fact statistically that is a huge gap. Almost 40% of meat eaters compared to 92% of vegans. My argument was that meat is required for optimal performance of the body and that really shows it for me, a 52% difference.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

PRIMARY PERCEPTION
CLEVE BAXTER
on CoasttoCoastAM















LOVE

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by watcher73

 

Oh i read it and the article states clearly that vegans had a 92% rate of difficiency so that is greater than meat eaters is it not? In fact statistically that is a huge gap. Almost 40% of meat eaters compared to 92% of vegans. My argument was that meat is required for optimal performance of the body and that really shows it for me, a 52% difference.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

So youre quoting an article from 2003 I think and during the time since the RDA of b12 has gone significantly down. Now how many of the people in that study are/were deficient?

In our modern-day society, bacteria isn't found on our plant-foods for two reasons. First, the large number of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals used to treat our food doesn't allow a large amount of this bacteria to grow in our soils. Second, we wash our food very well. So, in our modern-day diet, there is not enough of this good bacteria on our plant foods so we have to find other sources.

People who eat meat or vegetarians that eat dairy and eggs, can easily get their B12 from animal products. This is mainly because of contamination of the animal foods by the bacteria normally found in the gut of these animals.

Unfortunately for vegans, the only source of B12 is through a supplement. So when you pop that B12 pill, hopefully you'll feel better knowing that you have to take it only because of our clean, modern-day culture and not because a vegan diet is fundamentally deficient!

So it could be that now we are just too clean for veggies to provide us enough b12?

reply to post by watcher73


Can you guys please discontinue the dietary discussions, that is quite off topic. I'd like to keep this as simple as possible.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Devolution i'm just going to take a crack at this thread in the way you originally requested, the morality of eating plants if they react to stimuli.

Ok now firstly there is reaction to stimuli, pain, realisation of harm and concious interpretation of harm.

When a human receives stimulation that causes pain they react instintively away from it. They can then think about how much it hurt and get upset about it, we have emotion.

Animals also have base emotions like fear and anger, however they do not after the incident think "wow that wasn't nice" in these concious terms. They can however remember what caused the stimulus and avoid it in future.

Plants, as far as we are aware have no mechanism to either conciously interpret pain or remember the reaction for future reference. It would appear that damage to the plant causes various chemicals to be released which cause an automatic response that requires no thought.

I would liken this to the plants which close up during rain storms to protect their leaves of flowers. So as the plant cannot suffer as it has no conciousness to interpret suffering i would say that the plant can be eaten without it being morally offensive.

As for animals i would say they can be eaten as long as they do not suffer and have a quick, painless death.

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
When animals stop eating animals, I will stop eating animals.

MessOnTheFED!

Your statement implies you have the moral outlook of an animal - if an action is ok for an animal, it's ok for you. By this argument infanticide & cannibalism would also be acceptable life choices. If you disagree then why is it ok for animals and not humans?

Animals also eat their own faeces.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by watcher73

 

Can you guys please discontinue the dietary discussions, that is quite off topic. I'd like to keep this as simple as possible.

Death or disability from deficiency becomes a moral issue. Especially from those habitual vegetarians, or babies who are forced on specific diets.



[edit on 29-12-2009 by watcher73]

I think the morally and politically correct thing to do is eat more COWS. They fart more greenhouse gasses than we exhale everyday. Not only that, if you kill a cow, it is a quick and decisive act. Now think about a carrot, you pull it up out of the earth, still alive, wash off all its native soil, ship in a cold box, while it shivers without mercy, put it on display at a store where it can be gawked at and fondled for days by perverse humans.
Then, it gets sold and perhaps ... eaten ALIVE! How awful!

Originally posted by watcher73

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Err please just look up vegan vs meat eating bodybuilders, they are literally half the size.

End of thread. He has seen the piksures. Case closed.

Move on, nothing to see here, except the piksures.

Actually the thread ended on page 6 when Wallachian said this.

Originally posted by Wallachian

If I gave you a kitten (or a horse or a whale) and let's say a lettuce and ask you to kill one of the two, we both know what you would choose.

Regardless of whether plants feel pain or not they are clearly in a different moral class to animals, especially higher animals.

I can't find the article online right now, but I remember reading about one experiment in which a guy would enter a room full of plants and snip away at a few leaves and then exit. The next day he would come back and do the same. By the third day, all of the plants in the room began to register a physical response on test equipment as soon as the man would enter the room, even before he would begin cutting.

I do believe that plants are more "aware" than we may realize. However, the fact is that every human being consumes something which had once been alive.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Actually the thread ended on page 6 when Wallachian said this.

Originally posted by Wallachian

If I gave you a kitten (or a horse or a whale) and let's say a lettuce and ask you to kill one of the two, we both know what you would choose.

Regardless of whether plants feel pain or not they are clearly in a different moral class to animals, especially higher animals.

Erm sorry but if i was really hungry i would be having kitten and salad.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Actually the thread ended on page 6 when Wallachian said this.

Originally posted by Wallachian

If I gave you a kitten (or a horse or a whale) and let's say a lettuce and ask you to kill one of the two, we both know what you would choose.

Actually the thread ended with the OP when it asked "how alive are plants" and later stated "plants are alive too".

Regardless of whether plants feel pain or not they are clearly in a different moral class to animals, especially higher animals.

Could you expand on your meaning here? Sounds interesting.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by watcher73]

[edit on 29-12-2009 by watcher73]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


"Plants, as far as we are aware have no mechanism to either conciously interpret pain or remember the reaction for future reference."
I BEG TO DIFFER. In an experiment, several similar plants were in a room. A man came in and smashed one and then stomped on it. Later the gardener came in and the plants didn't react to him. Then the evil dude reappeared and the plants had a measurable reaction to his presence. Plants are Sentient beings and they remember evil people.
www.sentienttimes.com...

Originally posted by zachi
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

"Plants, as far as we are aware have no mechanism to either conciously interpret pain or remember the reaction for future reference."
I BEG TO DIFFER. In an experiment, several similar plants were in a room. A man came in and smashed one and then stomped on it. Later the gardener came in and the plants didn't react to him. Then the evil dude reappeared and the plants had a measurable reaction to his presence. Plants are Sentient beings and they remember evil people.
www.sentienttimes.com...

What was the reaction and how was it measured?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by watcher73
I see on that list some of the greatest athletes ever known to have graced the Olympics.

But yet, vegans and vegetarians need to take dietary suppliments. Why is that I wonder?

Hmm lets see where these supplements come from...

Well they certainly don't come from animals.

soo... hmm...

reply to post by zachi


I just skimmed through that and it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed and so we cannot discount poor research methedology or even if the researcher was honest in his account. I will agree wholehearedly that plants react to chemical signals but so can a CO2 detector, that doesn't make a plant sentient only a biological machine.

If i got that wrong please correct me i just can't finda peer reviewed source. I did however only skim it.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Even accepting the assumed moral equivalence for the sake of argument, surely the logical conclusion would not be that vegetarians should eat animals but that no one should eat plants or animals?

Otherwise, they would be arguing that inflicting needless pain is morally ok. Maybe that is what they are arguing?

Inflicting needless pain is not morally acceptable, to me. However, killing animals (and plants for the sake of argument) would not be needless, it would be for the survival of the species.

-Dev

But eating animals is not necessary for the survival of the species, if anything our current way of farming animals is detrimental to our survival.

Like I said previously I wouldn't have a problem eating an animal in a life-or-death situation but when it's possible to survive without eating an animal (and it is) the only justification for doing so can be that you like eating meat. And that is not a moral justification at all.

How was the response measured?
Experimenters including Cleve Backster and Paul Sauvin independently attached increasingly more sensitive polygraph electrodes directly to the leaves of various houseplants in laboratory tests. Typically they sought sentient response by the administration of pain. Surprisingly (?) the graph needles jumped whenever a burning match was placed directly beneath any leaf of the tested plant. What’s more, there were indications of a fear response before a match ever came near them, while they showed no reaction if the experimenter merely pretended to light one. It was as if they could sense his intentions through a reading of his projected energy. They even reacted to the killing of other, non related life forms in their presence, and at times seemed to demonstrate a memory by continuing to show alarm any time the “killer” researcher reentered the room.

Originally posted by watcher73



What was the reaction and how was it measured?

nm i finally found it

id like to see that replicated by other scientists

reply to post by watcher73



id like to see that replicated by other scientists

Me too, do you have an extra polygraph anywhere?