Against Leather and Animal Testing !!!!

[BiCoastal Kid]

Well, this is why we should use murderers and imprisoned sex offenders for human testing.

[Jumboshrmp]

We're at the top of the food chain because we can kill any animal in the world, eat them, take the skin and make a nice rug out of it.

 

It doesn't matter if they were here first, we're just too advanced for them. No matter how much people want animal equality it will never happen. It's simply a fact of life that we are better than them.

 

Also another reason PETA suck. They said that even if scientists developed a cure for AIDS then they would still want all the research destroyed and never used. So millions of people have to die for a stupid useless chicken?

 

That chicken is never going to do anything in it's lifetime, they lay eggs and bugger all else.

 

We have complex lives, we experience emotions far greater than any animal on this planet, we've left this planet in search of other life, we have complex societies with law order and justice.

 

And a chicken should be treated as equally as us?

 

^ So you would offer yourself up for testing in the place of an animal?

 

no. unlike animals, i can communicate a choice to refuse. yet, im sure there would be people willing to volunteer for these study groups.

 

would you?

 

I very much doubt you would find someone of sane mind willing to be tested.

 

And no I would never allow myself to be tested on. We have animals to do that on.

 

 

By making medicine we're playing god. Maybe some people were meant to die and let's let them. There are some things in life that you need to accept, and one of them is death.

 

I'm appauled that you can even think that. I think you might actually be the only person who's intelligence is on par with a chicken.

 

That pretty much sums everything up right there.

Animals are lesser creatures than humans.

Killing an animal for fur is one thing. But if I can save a humans life by killing a chimpanzee, I would do it.

The same way the government would allow a hostage to die in order to save the rest of the country.

 

I understand your empathy for animals, I feel the same way too, however I do not ebelieve that they should be treated the same as humans.

[Ed]

I very much doubt you would find someone of sane mind willing to be tested.

 

I would if they paid me enough money, promised not to ruin my eye sight like they do with rabbits and other animals and promised not to cut anything off. What can I say? I'm a poor college kid

 

Hahaha. The only problem I see there is that there was recently a case in the UK where a drug tested on 6 people almost killed them because of unforseen consequences. On the news one guy couldnt use his fingers or walk anymore. So in a case like you have to wonder, wouldn't it be better having that happen to an animal rather than a human?

 

Of course it would be ideal if all testing didn't have side-effects but the only way forward in life is to test things, try new ideas and learn from mistakes.

 

In addition to your AIDS comment. I'd like to know where you got your facts about PETA's statement. PETAs argument is about the waste of time and methods, testing monkeys, who have different behaviors and biological/chemical reactions to HIV injections versus humans. You spend 6 years injecting the disease in monkeys to find a cure and realize once you have the cure, it doesnt work on humans. The research is waste.

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200605/CUL20060509b.html

 

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/advertisements_detail.cfm/ad/14

 

My facts come from the news. Type PETA AIDS into google and see what else you find.

 

Nothing is wasted in effect. As I said we can't get anywhere in life without testing things, and if a drug works on one animal and not on us then we know not to test on that animal in the future. No research is ever wasted or discarded. It all comes together in the end for the greater good of the greater species.

 

Even though i'm not religious I think the idea that we were given the task of governing the other animals is quite fitting. We've clearly become more advanced than any other intelligent life that we know of so why shouldn't we be allowed to decide what to do with them.

 

 

Just to clarify i'm not an animal hater. The meat my family buys is free range, eggs don't come from battery chickens and we recycle alot.

 

I just think with animal testing it has to be done to help us. So many people wouldn't be alive today if we hadn't started animal testing and with techniques getting more advanced you can be sure we will be able to cure so many more diseases in the coming years.

[TheArchfiend]

Well, as a vegan of now 9 years I must say that this testing actually doesnt bother me. I dont wear leather, fur, makeup, otter skin shoes... etc. I just have no problem with those who do or groups that test on animals for research means.

 

Humans are carnivores with intelligence. Yet we are the only carnivores that discrimate on what animals we eat. Example: We eat cows and chickens, but not dogs. Why? Is it because a cow is ugly and puppies are cute? Is it because we don't have cows in our backyards to "moo" at the burglar before he breaks into our house? I find it all so hypocritical that humans (not all) select which animals to consume and which to cherish.

 

In any other facet of nature, the carnivore eats whatever it gets it's teeth on when it's hungry. If a cow could make a jacket out of human skin, it would. And if a cow could test products on human beings to gain research knowledge, it would.

 

I choose to be vegan because I value all life and will not just go along with a society that says eat this living thing but not that one!

 

To me, eating a cow/steer is saying it serves no other purpose but to feed or make clothes so it is providing a good by killing it and consuming it. By that extent; is it okay to kill off a severly injured or very mentally handicaped human? Can we do tests on them in their debilitated state? Can they produce goods for society in a working environment like you or I? Are they doing much more than consuming resources such as time and money from tax payers/family members?

 

Now, I'm not for the killing of mentally or severely handicap individuals, just trying to point out a little hypocracy in our society.

[methylene]

Humans are carnivores with intelligence. Yet we are the only carnivores that discrimate on what animals we eat. Example: We eat cows and chickens, but not dogs. Why?

The answer is very simple: We found dogs useful and therefore they evolved with us as servant-companions. They assisted in hunting, in home security, in transportation, etc. Note that this is largely a cultural thing: There are certainly places in the world were you can find dogs on the menu. In fact, some cultures consider dogs to be unclean and won't have anything to do with them, food or otherwise.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

 

Is it because a cow is ugly and puppies are cute? Is it because we don't have cows in our backyards to "moo" at the burglar before he breaks into our house?

 

It has everything to do with how cultures evolve. The Hindus revere cows, for instance.

 

I find it all so hypocritical that humans (not all) select which animals to consume and which to cherish.

It isn't hypocritical at all that different cultures have varying emphasis on different animals.

 

I choose to be vegan because I value all life and will not just go along with a society that says eat this living thing but not that one!

All life? This is a very difficult philosophical position to defend. For instance, bacterial cells outnumber your own cells 10 to 1 on and inside your body. In fact, bacteria are essential components of several organ systems. Do you value their lives when you take a shower, wash your hands, or take an antibiotic? Why not? Are your cells ten times more important than theirs or is all life equal?

 

Note that I have no problems with your choice to be vegan, but I hate to see anyone backing their decisions with weak foundations.

 

 

To me, eating a cow/steer is saying it serves no other purpose but to feed or make clothes so it is providing a good by killing it and consuming it. By that extent; is it okay to kill off a severly injured or very mentally handicaped human? Can we do tests on them in their debilitated state? Can they produce goods for society in a working environment like you or I? Are they doing much more than consuming resources such as time and money from tax payers/family members?

You're the one who thinks all life is equal, therefore attributing such an argument to those who don't is a strawman.

 

Now, I'm not for the killing of mentally or severely handicap individuals, just trying to point out a little hypocracy in our society.

 

You've yet to show what is hypocritical. Hypocritical is saying one thing yet doing something contradictory. Most of our society says that all life is not equal, therefore when they act on this they aren't contradicting themselves.

 

I consider dogs to be superior to cows because I'm a product of thousands of years of symbiant man-dog evolution (societal and genetic) that leads me to think this. You consider all life to be equal, so eating a cow but not a dog is hypocritical if you were to do it.

 

Matt

[BiCoastal Kid]

symbiant man-dog evolution

 

This in no way arguementative, nor am I making fun of you in any way, but I find this term to be COMPLETELY AWESOME.

[Ed]

There's a good reason why we use cows and chickens for food.

 

Cows - Meat, Milk, Leather

Chickens - Meat, Eggs, Feathers (sometimes)

 

Dog - Meat.

 

Get my point? We use the animals that are most useful to us. And be honest would want to drink dog milk?

[BiCoastal Kid]

Let' not mention the numerous other dairy derivatives!

[methylene]

symbiant man-dog evolution

 

This in no way arguementative, nor am I making fun of you in any way, but I find this term to be COMPLETELY AWESOME.

 

Thanks. Maybe I should petition for that to be my custom title, if it fits.

 

Matt

[Hercules]

It is a cultural thing when it comes what animals are eatten. In China they eat dogs and cats and actually have pigs as companion animals. The United States tried to stop what they saw as obscene behavior because we as Americans have dogs and cats as companions and, instead, eat pork. The United States made a big deal about it, and in return the Prime Minister of China said something to the effect of "If you stop killing pigs, then we might consider what you have to say." I thought that was pretty much brilliant and exactly what I would of said if I were in his situation. Many studies have been done with pigs over the years and have found that pigs are much more intelligent than dogs. Pigs actually are equivalent to a 4 year old human in terms of brain capacity and understanding. I talked to a young boy at a fair a couple of weeks ago who was taking care of his pigs that he had for show and asked him how smart he thought his pigs were, and I also through in the 4 year old thing. He looked at me and disagreed. "They are at least 10." Sorry about the little tangent, but yes, it is all cultural.

 

Next, do you really think it is natural to drink the milk of another animal? Cows milk is for baby cows. Goats milk is for baby goats. Human milk is for baby humans. And so on and so on. Sure, I have to admit that I still eat cheese from time to time. As I had mentioned, I just love pizza way to damn much. But just think of what it takes to make cheese. There is puss and mucus in that stuff. Milk is extremely high in saturated fat also and overall really isn't as healthy as thought to be. The high protein in milk actually leaches calcium from bones, the complete opposite of what is believed.

 

And to tell you the truth, I'm kind of starting to believe that we really aren't carnivores by nature.

 

http://www.vegsource.com/articles/archive.htm

[methylene]

Next, do you really think it is natural to drink the milk of another animal?

It isn't supernatural, therefore it is natural.

 

 

And to tell you the truth, I'm kind of starting to believe that we really aren't carnivores by nature.

 

We're omnivores by nature.

 

Matt

[Hercules]

Alright, I didn't want to go this route but, is it natural for a human to have sex with a cow? Would be be able to reproduce with a cow or other animal? No. Why would we drink its milk?

[BiCoastal Kid]

^It's twisted, but it is completely natural when you break it down.

[TheArchfiend]

First, thank you for the response...

 

The answer is very simple: We found dogs useful and therefore they evolved with us as servant-companions. They assisted in hunting, in home security, in transportation, etc. Note that this is largely a cultural thing: There are certainly places in the world were you can find dogs on the menu. In fact, some cultures consider dogs to be unclean and won't have anything to do with them, food or otherwise.

 

Totally agree, and I know all about the cultural views of one country towards animals; such as dogs, to the next. However, my point moreover was that in most all other facets of nature (non-human)the predator goes after prey when it's hungry no matter how "useful" that animal is to them or not. I love dogs and would never harm one as much as I wouldnt harm a cow, BUT if I had to live off the land and the only food available to me was my servant-companion dog, then it's time to cook ol' Sparky. Because that is what nature would do.

 

I agree that dogs are far more useful to us than say, a rooster. But I just find it still hypocritical if one wanted to eat a dog or even open a establishment that served dog and was shunned for doing so. I wont eat there but many can if they wanted to. In our society these people who cooked or ate dog would be burned at the proverbial stake. Unless they kept it low key like some places do.

 

And one point that I meant to that original post that I now remember was the hypocracy in killing an animal such as a cow but being furious over animal testing on just as equally an "worthless" animal for cosmetics, chemical companies, etc...

 

It isn't hypocritical at all that different cultures have varying emphasis on different animals.

 

You're right and I was only directing that to the current U.S. public/commercial cultural that selectively designates which animals are eaten and which are not.

 

All life? This is a very difficult philosophical position to defend. For instance, bacterial cells outnumber your own cells 10 to 1 on and inside your body. In fact, bacteria are essential components of several organ systems. Do you value their lives when you take a shower, wash your hands, or take an antibiotic? Why not? Are your cells ten times more important than theirs or is all life equal?

 

Ok, slow down bub... You read a tab bit too much into "all life". To explain a little more clearly for ya, I cheerish all living animals bigger than micro-organisms. I'm realistic, not insane. And yes, I know I may have stepped on an ant or two unknowingly. And I kill weeds and cut down/back trees taking up their fair share of my property. But thank you for the elaborate response none-the-less

 

Note that I have no problems with your choice to be vegan, but I hate to see anyone backing their decisions with weak foundations.

 

You havent heard why I became vegan, so how can you decide my foundations are weak? Little judgemental are we?

 

I became vegan first 9 years ago for health/wellness reasons, then I have evolved; about two years ago, into the "animal hugging hippie" that I am today.

 

You're the one who thinks all life is equal, therefore attributing such an argument to those who don't is a strawman.

 

Never said life was equal... Just pointing out that I cant bring myself to kill one animal over the other cause society deems it to be. That simple.

 

 

You've yet to show what is hypocritical. Hypocritical is saying one thing yet doing something contradictory. Most of our society says that all life is not equal, therefore when they act on this they aren't contradicting themselves.

 

I consider dogs to be superior to cows because I'm a product of thousands of years of symbiant man-dog evolution (societal and genetic) that leads me to think this. You consider all life to be equal, so eating a cow but not a dog is hypocritical if you were to do it.

 

I havent shown what is hypocritical!?... certain animals are killed and eaten yet others are not all because one society to another says so or doesnt. We (meat eaters) call ourselves carnivores/omnivores, right?

 

Carnivores = Eats meat.

Majority of U.S. population = Only allowed to eat certain types of meat.

 

Thats not hypocritical at all? I just pointed out exactly what you said is the definition of hypocracy.

 

And once again, I dont consider all life to be equal as I agree with your perception of the dog to man relationship creating a dogs superior staus in society to that of a cow or lesser animal. I just wont eat an animal, period.

 

Thanks again for the response. You come off ten times more educated than most people who voice a response to me on this subject. Eventhough you probably think I'm a total pin-head

[Not For Sale]

Next, do you really think it is natural to drink the milk of another animal? Cows milk is for baby cows. Goats milk is for baby goats. Human milk is for baby humans. And so on and so on. Sure, I have to admit that I still eat cheese from time to time. As I had mentioned, I just love pizza way to damn much. But just think of what it takes to make cheese. There is puss and mucus in that stuff. Milk is extremely high in saturated fat also and overall really isn't as healthy as thought to be. The high protein in milk actually leaches calcium from bones, the complete opposite of what is believed.

Eh, yes and no. I understand your point about that behavior being odd, but humans evolved to have a trait that helps digest another animal's milk. Lactose intolerant people do not have this. We got this way due to a mutation, and it was favorable in the conditions that it happened in, so that's why we can and do drink milk of other animals.

[Hercules]

^It's twisted, but it is completely natural when you break it down.

 

Would you care to break it down then? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just curious.

 

 

 

By Mr Friedrich himself.

 

Meat, dairy, and egg products are making people sick. In fact, they are ruining our later years and killing us. They have absolutely no fiber or complex carbohydrates in them, and they are packed with saturated fat and cholesterol. In the short term, eating meat, dairy products, and eggs is likely to make a person fat and lethargic. In the long term, eating these products can cause heart disease, cancer, stroke, high blood pressure, and an array of other problems. I’d like to make a couple of points about human physiology, and then I’ll talk about the link between animal products and a few of the worst health scourges plaguing North Americans.

It’s amazing how many seemingly intelligent people, to justify their meat-eating, open their mouths, point at their teeth, and say something about “canines” as a means of defending a habit that is ecologically devastating, cruel to animals, and likely to kill them. Leaving aside how different human “canines” are from the canine teeth of carnivores (I really wonder if these people have ever even looked at the long, dagger-like canines of a dog or tiger), every natural carnivore has an array of other physiological properties that do not mirror ours. For example, unlike humans, all natural meat-eaters, such as dogs and rats, manufacture their own vitamin C, whereas we need to consume vitamin C in fruits and vegetables; true carnivores perspire through their tongues rather than through their skin; natural meat-eaters have sharp, pointy front teeth, sharp and jagged molars, and a tooth-bone density many times greater than that of humans, which enables them to crunch through the bones of their prey; carnivores have no digestive enzymes in their saliva at all, and their digestive acids are many times more acidic than those of humans, so the bacteria from rotting flesh won’t kill them; natural meat-eaters have jaws that move only vertically, instead of in a grinding motion as ours do, and they don’t chew their food—they just rip and swallow; carnivores have claws to rip their prey apart instead of sensitive fingers for plucking; they have an intestinal tract only three times their body length to eject rotting flesh quickly; and natural meat-eaters never develop atherosclerosis, no matter how much saturated fat and cholesterol they consume—this is the disease that kills almost as many human beings in the industrialized world as all other causes of death combined. And the list of physiological differences between people and natural meat-eaters goes on and on.

But let’s also think about natural behaviors. How many of us salivate at the idea of chasing a small animal, ripping her limb from limb, and then devouring her, blood and all? I hope that no one listening has that reaction, but every carnivore does. How many of us, if we’re walking down the street and see an animal carcass on the road, think, “Mmmmmm ... I’d like to eat that!”? No. We think, “Oh, how sad,” or, “Blech.” Every single carnivore, if hungry, digs in.

Yes, human beings learned, “Hey, if we kill all the bacteria with fire, this stuff probably won’t kill us.” And a long time ago, when there was no vegetation for us, we started eating meat. BUT it’s still not good for us, and in fact it’s so bad for us that it kills many of us.

As I said, I adopted a vegan diet in 1987 At the time, I was running cross country, and when I dropped meat and dairy products from my diet, my 10k time plummeted from about 46 or 47 minutes down to between 42 and 43 minutes. Basically, when I stopped forcing my body to expend so much energy processing saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, I had more energy, my metabolism sped up, I dropped a few pounds that I didn’t even know I had, and I got faster. I also found that I needed less sleep, had far more energy, and felt happier, just in general. Of course, I am not unique. Vegans are always telling me that they need less sleep and less coffee and have more energy than they ever had before. They also tell me that their newfound energy has made them happier.

Dr. T. Colin Campbell is one of the world’s foremost epidemiological scientists and director of what The New York Times called “the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease.” Dr. Campbell’s studies have shown that, as he puts it, “the vast majority of all cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of degenerative illness can be prevented simply by adopting a plant-based diet.”

Let’s touch on heart disease first. Heart disease kills almost as many people in North America as all other causes of death combined. Up until about 15 years ago, it was assumed that as people get older, their arteries inevitably become clogged. If you didn’t get hit by a bus or die of cancer or something, your arteries would eventually close, causing either your brain or your heart to give out, and that would be it. Enter Dr. Dean Ornish, who has since proven that 100 percent of heart attacks from clogged arteries—and again, this is by far the developed world’s biggest killer—that 100 percent are preventable. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn has replicated Dr. Ornish’s findings, taking patients who were suffering from clogged arteries and making them “heart attack proof” (to quote Dr. Esselstyn in the August 1999 issue of the American Journal of Cardiology) by getting their cholesterol levels down below 150.

In fact, the average vegan cholesterol level is about 133, while the average vegetarian cholesterol level is 161. And the average meat-eater’s cholesterol level is 210. Although the medical establishment may say “Well, you’ve done your best,” at 210, people are still dropping like flies. As Dr. Charles Attwood pointed out, this is insane: If people were being run down by trucks at the same rate that they’re dying from meat-and-dairy-induced heart attacks, something would be done.

And the same is true for cancer. There is complete scientific unanimity: As much cancer is caused by diet as is caused by smoking, which is a lot! And it is also completely clear how we can prevent cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund, the American Cancer Society, and the Royal Cancer Society in Britain—all organizations that study the issue agree that as many cases of cancer are caused by diet as are caused by smoking, and all of them make the same top-two recommendations for preventing cancer: Eat more plant-based foods, and eat fewer animal-based foods. In other words, “go vegan.” According to Dr. William Castelli, chair of the Nutrition Department at Harvard Medical School and the researcher who has directed the longest-running clinical trial in history, “A low-fat, plant-based diet would … lower the cancer rate 60 percent.”

Just to be clear, it’s not the fat and cholesterol that cause cancer; it’s the animal protein. The fat and cholesterol cause heart disease; the animal protein causes cancer. Dr. T. Colin Campbell states that “human studies also support this carcinogenic effect of animal protein, even at usual levels of consumption … no chemical carcinogen is nearly so important in causing human cancer as animal protein.”

But what about milk? That the dairy industry has succeeded in selling people on this nonsense—that cow’s milk is good for them—is truly remarkable and a tribute to the power of pouring money into advertising. But no one tries to defend milk-drinking as natural, because what could be less natural than one species’ decision to consume the mammary secretions of another species? It’s not as if nature made a mistake—dog mothers’ milk for puppies; kangaroo mothers’ milk for kangaroos; rat mothers’ milk for baby rats; cow mothers’ milk for calves … oh, hey, wait a minute! Let’s use cow mammary secretions for human beings also, including grown-up ones who shouldn’t be drinking any mothers’ milk at their age anyway. Of course not.

Nevertheless, the dairy industry would have us believe that consuming its products will protect and even build your bones. The fact is, however, that clinical and population evidence shows us otherwise. For example, in the areas of the world where people consume the most dairy products, you find the highest rates of osteoporosis. Please check out PETA’s Web site DumpDairy.com to learn all about the link between meat and dairy consumption and osteoporosis. What dairy researchers do to spin the results of studies would make George Orwell proud, but in the end, it is obvious that the dairy industry is profit-driven and that it will sacrifice our health in a heartbeat in order to make more money.

Recently, there has been a lot of commotion about the fact that kids are getting fatter. One culprit is the soft drink industry, which is signing contracts with school systems to have its products given prominent placement. The dairy industry saw the prospect of a serious payday if it could challenge the soda dominance in schools. So what did the industry introduce? A product with even more sugar than sodas and more than twice the calories—460 calories in one bottle, and 16 grams of fat to boot! That’s almost as much fat as in a McDonald’s “Happy Meal,” and this is just a beverage. Dairy products are a prescription for obesity, heart disease, lethargy, and a host of other problems. That the dairy industry would actually claim to be doing kids a favor is morally revolting.

On the other hand, vegetarians are one-third as likely to be obese as meat-eaters, and vegans are about one-tenth as likely to be obese. You can be a fat vegan, of course, and you can be a skinny meat-eater. But vegans are, on average, 10 to 20 percent lighter than meat-eaters. Anyone who has questions about this might want to review Dr. Neal Barnard’s Food for Life or Dr. Dean Ornish’s Eat More: Weigh Less.

Finally, because many people do care more about quality of life than about longevity, let’s look at sex. Vegans tend to be much lighter than ovo-lacto vegetarians and meat-eaters, and they tend to have more energy, need less sleep, and so on. Clearly, these aspects of veganism can be good for a person’s sex life. But clogged arteries will block the blood flow to your extremities before they cut off the blood to your heart and kill you. This results in poor circulation and, for guys, impotence. And while we’re on the subject, it’s worth noting that many cholesterol-cutting drugs have, as one of their side effects, reduced sexual desire and potency. Toss out the Viagra; a vegan diet is natural Viagra.

All of this analysis applies to fish flesh as well as to other animal products: Fish flesh also has no fiber or complex carbohydrates and is packed with cholesterol. Fish are also frequently laden with heavy metals or other contaminants from the water in which they swim. We’ve all heard the warnings about high mercury levels in fish and how pregnant women shouldn’t consume fish; well, if it’s not good for pregnant women, it can’t be good for anyone else, either.

According to the U.S. Government Accounting Office, or GAO, inadequate regulations mean that unsafe, contaminated, and spoiled fish often end up on our nation’s grocery shelves. In fact, 15 percent of all food-borne illnesses in the U.S. are caused by contaminated fish, even though fish represents only a small fraction of the total food consumed. Some fish flesh is offered for sale without having been inspected even once, and even where FDA oversight applies, according to the GAO, many inspections consist of no more than paperwork, and even serious violations rarely result in a consumer alert.

Really, there is nothing good about fish flesh. The one thing we hear about is the cholesterol-lowering properties of Omega 3 and 6 fatty acids, but one finds Omega 3’s and 6’s in many vegan foods as well, like flaxseed oil. Besides, if your cholesterol level is below 150—and remember that the average vegan level is 133—you’d make Ripley’s Believe It or Not if you had a heart attack.

All this discussion is about animal products when they’re at their best, that is, organic. But most animal products are packed full of antibiotics, dioxins, and food-borne pathogens like E. Coli, salmonella, and campylobacter. Millions of people get sick each year from eating contaminated meat, especially chicken and sea animals, and thousands die. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, meat and dairy consumers are taking in 22 times the acceptable level of dioxins in their food. Ninety-five percent of dioxin exposure comes from consuming meat, dairy, or egg products. The other 5 percent is environmental; virtually none comes from consuming vegan foods.

If you care about your health, if you want to live with as much vigor as possible, look as good as possible, and do as much good as possible, it would be wise to move toward adopting a vegan diet.

 

 

That's just the biological stuff but the article found here http://www.goveg.com/veganism.asp covers all sorts of things like environment, etc. It's several pages.

[Hercules]

Next, do you really think it is natural to drink the milk of another animal? Cows milk is for baby cows. Goats milk is for baby goats. Human milk is for baby humans. And so on and so on. Sure, I have to admit that I still eat cheese from time to time. As I had mentioned, I just love pizza way to damn much. But just think of what it takes to make cheese. There is puss and mucus in that stuff. Milk is extremely high in saturated fat also and overall really isn't as healthy as thought to be. The high protein in milk actually leaches calcium from bones, the complete opposite of what is believed.

Eh, yes and no. I understand your point about that behavior being odd, but humans evolved to have a trait that helps digest another animal's milk. Lactose intolerant people do not have this. We got this way due to a mutation, and it was favorable in the conditions that it happened in, so that's why we can and do drink milk of other animals.

 

Right, but we weren't like this naturally, thus, we had to adapt and were never truly intended to eat meat and drink their milk and what have you.

[methylene]

Alright, I didn't want to go this route but, is it natural for a human to have sex with a cow?

Is it supernatural? No. If it isn't supernatural, what is it? Gross, disgusting, and wildly inappropriate, but this is moral relativism based on our society's evolution.

 

Would be be able to reproduce with a cow or other animal?

We cannot reproduce with cows. We can reproduce with other animals, namely other humans and in some rare isolated cases chimpanzees (lab-tested only...eww).

 

No. Why would we drink its milk?

Because we like the taste of it and we can.

 

Can you create offspring with an apple tree? Then why do you eat its fruit?

 

Matt

[BiCoastal Kid]

I fail to see how having a limited selection of meat is hypocritical? Just because carnivore means that you eat meat doesn't mean you have to eat all meats.

 

When it comes to meat, I am a tremendomeatatarian. I only eat meats that I find to be tremendously tastey, which is why I don't eat deer. I also don't east steak by itself, it's gotta be mixed with something.

[methylene]

Eh, yes and no. I understand your point about that behavior being odd, but humans evolved to have a trait that helps digest another animal's milk. Lactose intolerant people do not have this. We got this way due to a mutation, and it was favorable in the conditions that it happened in, so that's why we can and do drink milk of other animals.

 

Actually, you have it backwards. Almost all humans (and mammals) are born with the ability to produce the lactase enzyme (to digest breast milk obviously), but due to a mutation a small amount of people stop producing lactase as they grow older.

 

Matt

[BiCoastal Kid]

^It's twisted, but it is completely natural when you break it down.

 

Would you care to break it down then? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just curious.

 

Sex between a cow, or any other animal, and a man doesn't require anything synthetic. It can occur as long as you have a cow and a man who decides he wants to have sex with it. I see nothing unnatural about it. I see that it is disgusting and I can't understand WHY it would happen, but I admit that there's nothing "unnatural" about it.

[TheArchfiend]

We cannot reproduce with cows. We can reproduce with other animals, namely other humans and in some rare isolated cases chimpanzees (lab-tested only...eww).

 

No kidding. Was it an all out chimp or human that was produced? Or something more missing-link-ish?

 

I'll start to get worried when scientists figure out how to splice human genes with soemthing like a lion. Something tells me that some guys in lab coats are trying that theory out as we speak.

 

oh... um... back on topic.... uh.... How bout that animal testing. Crazy, man.

[Hercules]

Can you create offspring with an apple tree? Then why do you eat its fruit?

 

Matt

 

Obviously not. They don't have any kind of sexual reproduction.

 

And actually, humans have adapted and mutated to be able to breakdown meats and other milks. We originally were just able to be able to breakdown our own milk. He had it pretty much right.

[TheArchfiend]

I fail to see how having a limited selection of meat is hypocritical? Just because carnivore means that you eat meat doesn't mean you have to eat all meats.

 

When it comes to meat, I am a tremendomeatatarian. I only eat meats that I find to be tremendously tastey, which is why I don't eat deer. I also don't east steak by itself, it's gotta be mixed with something.

 

The hypocracy lies in not being allowed to eat certain meats if we are supposedly carnivores.

 

If you went into a public park and threw a hot dog on the grill is one thing. If you threw a actual dog on the grill, you'd get arrested. Why, becuase society has said you can kill this but not that. Why? Because we like this one more or value it more.

 

I wonder where exactly the cut off for usefullness of an animal is before you can grill it?

 

Its questions like that that are my cause for calls of hypocracy.

 

Frankly, I can give two lilly pads less about others eating habits. I only care about what I put into my body for sustanance.

[methylene]

I havent shown what is hypocritical!?... certain animals are killed and eaten yet others are not all because one society to another says so or doesnt. We (meat eaters) call ourselves carnivores/omnivores, right?

 

Carnivores = Eats meat.

Majority of U.S. population = Only allowed to eat certain types of meat.

 

Thats not hypocritical at all? I just pointed out exactly what you said is the definition of hypocracy.

There's still no hypocrasy being shown here. The majority of the U.S. population attributes different values to different animals and then demonstrates this in their selections of food, pets, etc. They do exactly as they claim. Your best bet for 'hypocrisy' would be 'hypocrisy against evolutionary advantages' which is weak at best because it is the evolutionary development of society itself that led to such differing values for various animals.

 

And once again, I dont consider all life to be equal

I apologize for mischaracterizing your position thusly.

 

...as I agree with your perception of the dog to man relationship creating a dogs superior staus in society to that of a cow or lesser animal. I just wont eat an animal, period.

Fine by me. I won't eat shellfish. Or raw carrots.

 

Thanks again for the response. You come off ten times more educated than most people who voice a response to me on this subject. Eventhough you probably think I'm a total pin-head

 

Hardly. You're obviously both educated and level-headed. I respect that in a discussion.

 

Matt