Waves

we dont need to kill animals for food. if you look at it from an objective perspective its pretty fucked up when our natural diet consists of fruits/veggies yet we have thousands and thousands of people basically living on fast food. and if its not fast food its expensive steaks and ribs and shit like that.

dont get me wrong, if one needed to kill an animal for food i dont see anything wrong with that, but in our world of consumerism and modernized economies we dont need to kill animals for food at all. once again it comes down to people making money off of other peoples stupidity.

/endrant

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

frendofthedevil

Good post, pretty much sums it up for me
I think the whole thing about not minding a person dying over a different animal is just that most animals are defenseless to the means we use to kill them, while a human could fight back just as well.
I still really dont like watching people get killed either, though

What is that cat video? It sounds bad, but you've got me interested

Paranoid Android

I dont even want to look at the cat video, because I love cats.

Seeing someone kill a defensless cat, would only anger me enough to beat the living shit out of the person that did it.

I remember seeing a video of 2 kids that walk up to a dog in a corner on the street, and they started beating it with a 2 x 4, and kick the shit out of it... all I can say, is if I were there when that happened, there would be two kids near imminent death.

__________________
"We're not scaremongering, this is really happening."

shylo666

ummmmmm............. ............no.

meat does not rot in the digestive system. true, it is not broken down in the stomach. the stomach only process some carbohydrates; it's a very preliminary step in the digestive system. the bulk of actual digestion takes place in the small intestine. the pancreas and spleen release enzymes (called proteases) which break down the protein that composes meat. this is called digestion. the protein is broken down into its amino acid components which are then absorbed.

secondly, humans aren't herbivores, we're omnivores. we're supposed to consume both plants and meat. alot less meat than we're now consuming, but we're still supposed to have it. the fact that we're not herbivores is completely obvious because of the fact that we cannot break down cellulose, the material that composes plant cell walls. true herbivores have microbes living in their digestive system that help them to break down the cellulose so that they can absorb and utilize it. in carnivores and omnivores, the cellulose remains untouched and passes right through the digestive tract. it's called fibre; that's why eating lots of fruit and veggies keeps you regular. another thing that bears witness to the fact that we're not true herbivores is that we can't subsist purely on plant matter. it's got to be supplemented with protein. vegetarians do this using legumes and things like tofu, but what they're really doing is making up the protein that meat would usually provide in their diet.

and as for the tooth and jaw construction of humans, we're kind of a hybrid there. ever heard of canine teeth? those don't appear in herbivores but guess what.....HUMANS HAVE THEM! canines are meant to pierce flesh and tear it off the bone, just as humans are meant to eat meat (at least occasionally). our molars are also more pointed (less grooved) than those of herbivores. if you've ever looked at a cow's tooth, it's got a bunch of horizontal grooves on it, very different from the 'crown structure of human teeth. our jaw and neck structure merely reflect the fact that we are an omnivore. we can chew side to side AND up and down. our neck can extend up and forward AND down. humans are omnivores, just like the other primates.

Mull D

good post

Waves

humans didnt evolve eating meat "occasionally." thats a rediculous idea.

and other primates are omnivores only to the point of eating small insects. they dont hunt animals like humans do, the only reason humans have the ability to hunt animals in the first place is the evolution of tools and that didnt come until long after our digestive system had been evolved. most primates eat nuts and fruits and vegetables.

also, our digestive system resembles a herbivores much more than it does an omnivores, which usually has a tract of about 30 feet. ours is about 10.

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

ziplock

Read on chimpanzees.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

shylo666

^thank you.

and also, waves, your last sentence doesn't make any sense.....

Waves

alright, so some primates hunt i acknowledge that. but the article itself says that meat constitutes about 3% of their diet. i actually thought it was higher.

anyway my point is the slaughter of animals we currently engaged in is unnecessary and only exists to make money. theres a huge difference between 3% and an average humans meat intake. our main courses 95% of the time contain meat, and being a vegetarian is considered "weird."

The meat in your digestive system creates a tremendous load on your body and as you get older you become more prone to disease. im not saying we need to be vegetarians, im saying that if given the option of eating meat and not eating meat it will always be healther to not eat meat. and in our society most people neglect that option.

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

Waves

I read this:
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...s/gorilla.html

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

reverie

Very interesting topic here, I was thinking about this as well

Budzilla420 after the whole kitten indicent... It's great that you brought it up.
Yeah it does seem to be pretty subjective huh? Afterall, the degrees of how people were affected by the kitten incident varied quite a bit. While just the pictures alone made me cry, I'm sure there were a few people who could watch the actual video several times.

When I think about this topic it seems that this is something that is pretty relative being that it is connected to a personal feeling. How one feels about an animal being killed, and how they also feel about a person being killed. Value factors in after the fact we have assessed the situation. What one values is then dependant upon individual feelings and interpretations. For example, you see a little boy playing with a ball...You observe what is taking place, then you connect the different factors to comprehend it (ie: I understand through my memory of people that certain characteristics represent certain ages. Thus I conclude the person is a little boy). From there personal associations are made to connect the the experience to oneself. This usually requires a relationship or understanding of another experience to connect to the current one (ie: The specific characteristics like facial features of the little boy imply that he is infact my brother. The ball is red which suggests it is the same ball I gave him as a christmas present) This then furthers my understanding and solidifies the position of each factor (the ball, my brother, time and most importantly "me") within the the experience. This then relates you to other situations which brings up familiar emotions. These emotions will differ from person to person according to their encounters.

Now, I know some people wouldn't feel half as bad if they saw a video of a person being murdered compared to the kitten video. But lets say we alter a factor of the human issue. What if it was a small infant being killed rather than a grown adult? The infant is no less human than an adult, but I'm sure this factor would change many people's perspectives. I believe this is because the thought process has changed, therefore so have the associations one makes. A person holds associations to every factor in any given situation, and since these associations are based upon past experiences they are very subjective. If i see a child, I'll travel through my memory of children and I'll think *cute, positive, innocent* while another person could think *loud, abnoxious, messy* based on their own memory of children. Why do murders always seem to think that what they do is somehow justified? The exterior factors of ones experience conditions their inner experience. Thoughts are molded to the point they almost become automatic and less of an analysis. This is well displayed through the reactive nature of todays society. Responsibility is then questioned, but being responsible takes time right? Time we don't seem to want to spend.

Existing imo means having influence, we should be aware of this influence and try to channel and mold it. View our thought processes just as we would any other experience, become more conscious. <Blah blah blah, I dont know if I make sense to anyone else...> Being objective, mobile and flexible so what we initially feel is just an indicator rather than something we choose to manifest. Use the tools we have to the best of our ability... Just some thoughts.

__________________

dissolve popular detachment

verklingen

shylo666:

The fact remains that we lack the proper natural faculties to facilitate meat-eating. Try killing, skinning, and eating a sheep using only your fingernails and canines. I'd love to hear a full report.

This is an alright link: http://www.tierversuchsgegner.org/Ge.../taxonomy.html

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Mull D

please
we have evolved using tools

verklingen

Please, I understand more about human evolution than the majority of people.

When our primate ancestors decided to come down from the trees, the tall grass of the african savannah forced them to stand on their legs in order to get a view of their surroundings. Increased use of their legs left their hands free to manipulate objects. This eventually lead to the use of tools. Continued use of these tools, as well as the invention of new ones, forced an increase in brain mass to accommodate the increasingly dextrous manipulation of these tools. This process continued until the size of our ancestors' brains became too large to pass through the pelvis during birth, but nature adapted to this new dilemma by causing labor to begin at earlier and earlier stages of fetal development until a newborn infant became essentially helpless on it's own: unable to walk or even hold on to its mother. It is at this point that our ancestors became essentially human.

Tools were first used for warfare/defense and providing shelter, not killing animals for food. I can use a mortar and pestle to grind some chalk or clay into dust. Does this mean that because I have developed the capability of making rocks easier to swallow I have now evolved to be able to properly digest rocks? Your logic is madness.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Mull D

you said "Try killing, skinning, and eating a sheep using only your fingernails and canines."

how is that even relevant?

verklingen

Because as human beings, we lack the proper physical faculties to kill, skin, and eat a sheep. We can use tools to facilitate this, but we can also use tools to facilitate the eating of rocks. Both processes (eating animals and eating rocks) use tools which we have developed as part of the evolution of tools, but our tools evolve much more rapidly than our biology. So just because we are able to do something does not mean our biology is able to cope with it.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Mull D

ok i see your point

shylo666

verklingen:

the fact remains that we are still physically equipped to digest meat. true, our ancestors would not have caught alot of it (pre-tool use) but the prey was also, in all probability, much smaller than a sheep. we are physically capable of catching and killing small animals and eating them. our teeth are designed with flesh consumption in mind and our digestive system is equipped to handle the digestion of animal protein.

i'm not arguing that we are complete carnivores or that our current diet doesn't contain way too much meat. but to attempt to argue that humans are true herbivores is absurd.

verklingen

I agree, friend!

I'm not claiming that humans are "herbivores," I merely point out the large number of anatomic and physiological similarities between humans and strict herbivores. Now, while humans may be able to digest meat and consume an omnivorous diet, it really cannot be argued realistically that the ideal diet for a human isn't a vegetarian one.

So while we may be capable of living an omnivorous lifestyle, our biology suits us better for one that is based on fruit, vegetable, leaf, grain, honey, and dairy.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

reverie

Namaste again my friend Verklingen, how goes it?
Consuming such foods as; fruits, vegetables, leaf, grain, honey and dairy are definately highly beneficial to our nutrition as a human species. They all have certain characteristics which provide us beneficially with certain nutrients for our body to grow best. At the same time meat also provides certain nutrients which are good for our health as well. Perhaps you could explain how a vegetarian diet better suits the human biology than a diet consisting of meat?

__________________

dissolve popular detachment