It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by swanne
Originally posted by theRhenn
P.S.. People like YOU are the reason why regular people have to give up their rights and their property and sometimes starve to death so people like you can feel like you saved a life... THATS NOT EVEN HUMAN.
Starvation is not caused by that. This only goes on to show how much of the real world you miss. You seem to think that if we don't kill animals, people will starve to death. The real world is not that way. In the real world, the body needs carbohydrates, which is found in vegan sources (you see - cells in your body and in your brain work by destructing glucose chains so to harvest the energy), such as beans and corn and wheat. Milk and eggs will give you the rest of the components the body needs.
Your justification for killing animals is moot.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by kmb08753
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by kmb08753
I would say this has more to do with "sports" like hunting and fishing and nothing to do with things that happen as a result of us eating.
Elwood specifically mentions how lobsters are processed, how crabs are kept with bound claws, and prawns are skewered alive. However, he seems particularly keen on raising awareness for ethical treatment of animals. I think this could apply to both, sport killing and humane food processing.
Maybe I misunderstood your reply.
I am not against more humane treatment of animals. Does binding claws cause pain? Skewered alive would be something mankind has had to do to animals for as long as we have been around to get food. I am all for more humane alternatives though if there is a better way.
Originally posted by theRhenn
Since the beginning of time, man has hunted... How are you going to tell me that we should eat only plants?
I know that you can be just as healthy eating plants as eating meat, but there is no justification that we should eat only plants.
while high in protein, it’s also packed with fats that can contribute to heart disease and diabetes and other compounds that can promote cancer.
The researchers divided the amount of meat consumed by the participants into five categories, ranging from the most (2.4 to 3.1 servings daily) to the least (less than half a serving daily). When they compared individuals who ate the most red meat with those who ate the least, the red meat lovers had a 30 percent greater risk of dying than the so-so meat consumers.
Chicken flesh and eggs are packed with cholesterol—a 3-ounce piece of skinless chicken breast meat has as much cholesterol as beef
My justification for killing animals is for food. Just because you eat plants doesn't mean you have any justifcation for taking away my meat eating. But sure.. we should leave that up to the meat eating animals.. right? Or should we stop meat eaters from eating other animals too?
We aren't at the beginning of time anymore, mate. If any, we are at its end...
You actually have more chance getting sick at eating meat than from being a vegan. First of all, the fat. The fat is all wrong, it's saturated fat, meaning it's the kind of which blocks your arteries. And, unlike plants, it contains carcinogens.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but cruciferous vegetables should be cooked before eating as they contain chemicals that BLOCK the production of thyroid hormone in your body!
Most of us think that eating fruits and vegetables can be nothing but healthy but there are hidden dangers in many common foods. Poisons that make you sick, paralyze and even kill you lurk behind some of our favorites.
eggs are packed with cholesterol
And, well, meat often carry potentially deadly bacterias, and, plus, as PETA points out, meat consumption by humans contribute to CO2 emission, and suggests vegan alimentation instead:
These animals don't know better. And even then, carnivorous animals aren't evolved enough to adapt to a new alimentation. I thought you could think by yourself, adapt, and that your actions didn't need approval from meat-eating animals.
Originally posted by kmb08753
Originally posted by Garkiniss
I think this study falls under the "No $#!t, Sherlock" category.
We already know plants feel pain as well. Why wouldn't a lobster?
Pain is the most basic learning tool in nature.
If this study were about rocks, then that would be news.
Well it was news to me. Current theory is that invertebrates do not have a complex enough nervous system to feel pain.
One example from the Lobster Institute at The University of Maine:
"Do lobsters feel pain?
The Lobster Institute has received many inquires about whether boiling lobsters is humane. Being concerned about this important question, researchers conducted experiments and studied the lobster’s nervous system. The nervous system of a lobster is very primitive; in fact it is most similar to the nervous system of an insect. If one compares the diagram of a lobster’s nervous system to that of a grasshopper, the similarities are apparent. Neither insects nor lobsters have brains. For an organism to perceive pain it must have a complex nervous system. Neurophysiologists tell us that lobsters, like insects, do not process pain."
People can "suppose" and suspect that they feel pain, but what I posted was someone offering proof.
edit on 8-8-2013 by kmb08753 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Laykilla
Originally posted by kmb08753
Originally posted by Garkiniss
I think this study falls under the "No $#!t, Sherlock" category.
We already know plants feel pain as well. Why wouldn't a lobster?
Pain is the most basic learning tool in nature.
If this study were about rocks, then that would be news.
Well it was news to me. Current theory is that invertebrates do not have a complex enough nervous system to feel pain.
One example from the Lobster Institute at The University of Maine:
"Do lobsters feel pain?
The Lobster Institute has received many inquires about whether boiling lobsters is humane. Being concerned about this important question, researchers conducted experiments and studied the lobster’s nervous system. The nervous system of a lobster is very primitive; in fact it is most similar to the nervous system of an insect. If one compares the diagram of a lobster’s nervous system to that of a grasshopper, the similarities are apparent. Neither insects nor lobsters have brains. For an organism to perceive pain it must have a complex nervous system. Neurophysiologists tell us that lobsters, like insects, do not process pain."
People can "suppose" and suspect that they feel pain, but what I posted was someone offering proof.
edit on 8-8-2013 by kmb08753 because: (no reason given)
Uhm, no -- that's not proof.
We have a complex brain, so when we feel pain we say it's because of our complex brain. We do not have an insect body, we cannot tell what an insect can feel or cannot feel, we can only postulate.
Until the day you can become a lobster, you can't say for sure!
edit on 11-8-2013 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)
EVERYTHING you eat will end up as CO2. Doh!!
I think meat is yummy! You should try it sometime. Might help YOUR thinking process.
Originally posted by swanne
reply to post by theRhenn
Let's pretend here that you're right, and that eating meat has less danger than eating plants. Then you say,
EVERYTHING you eat will end up as CO2. Doh!!
Here you misunderstood PETA's information. What PETA is trying to make us realize, is that feeding for instance beef is more invasive to the environment than growing plants. Plants require water, a good soil, and will convert atmospheric CO2 to sugar and oxygen, which in turn strengthens the ozone layer and lets humans breathe. If mankind was to augment its demand for meat, more meat will have to be produced to meet demands. Because beef and most animals we eat rely on eating plants to survive, That means more of our graminea stocks won't be used to feed people, but beef and pork and chicken instead. More water will be used to both sustain the plants that the cattle eats and the cattle itself. Plus cattle convert this part of oxygen back to CO2. It takes far more energy to sustain cattle than plants.