QueenZone discussion #1246831

Trees are just as alive as animals.

I'm afraid that just isn't true. Trees are known to communicate chemically, which is not really too different from what many animals including humans do in many ways.

I eat meat, I love animals, and there is no contradiction.

Neither can a comatose patient, yet nobody would claim that they are not as "alive" as me. "life" isn't something that happens in degrees, something is either alive, or it isn't, you can't be "less alive".

You certainly presented me with a big problem since I eat meat and hate animal torture. The only thing I do for animals is taking part in castration and vaccination campaigns as a sort of population control in poor areas of Argentina.

lifetimefanofqueen wrote: ok, idk if i spelt it, but heybrian says hes going to become vegan, so he cant drink milk, eat cheese, or wear anything that comes from an animal, that guy truely stays by his word and is very into animal rights, infact VERY much, i think its awesome that hes so interested in this and its his passion, so what do we all think about this?

QueenIsAwesome-Fan wrote: I'm a vegetarian myself, so I think that's pretty cool.

juan1921 wrote: Actually, humans weren't designed as anything.

Dane wrote: Our canine teeth say it all.

Jessica Rabbit wrote: We don't have canine teeth Dane. Do your homework. Enlighten yourself. You are corrent Juan 1921. God created man a vegan. It was indeed ONLY after the great flood that the eating of the flesh was permitted and only because vegetation was not readily available. Even so, strict rules for slaughter were given: not the tragedy of todays intensive farming situations.

Marcos Napier wrote: Yes, save the animals but kill the poor plants who can't even run. Not fair.

pipijolk wrote: For me it's about how the animal is treated. If it is raised in a cruel, soulless manner, (mass production line) I won't eat the meat. This has lead me to not eating meat for two decades... However, if you're talking about hunting a deer in an over-populated area, due to lack of natural predators, then I wouldn't have a problem eating that venison. The deer is in its natural environment where they have to be aware of predators,(wolves/ cougars /coyotes etc.) They aren't mass produced in a sterile factory given no chance at life. In their natural environment they have a chance to escape or avoid, they can't do that in a steel cage. Ah, it's all about awareness of how we treat fellow living creatures and either agreeing that we can go overboard with cruelty or not caring about cruelty because animals are inferior beings who are meant to be devoured.

tomchristie22 wrote: Especially since eating animals has been culturally acceptable for thousands of years, whilst eating humans is fairly taboo.

The Real Wizard wrote:

tomchristie22 wrote: Especially since eating animals has been culturally acceptable for thousands of years, whilst eating humans is fairly taboo.

Women were considered property for thousands of years too, and this was culturally acceptable. At least by men.. Our race, unlike any other, has the ability to make choices that go beyond basic survival. There are plenty of alternatives available to live a healthy life that isn't at the expense of other creatures. In fact, a fair portion of heart disease and cancer comes from animal products, and this is largely why more and more people are going vegan.

Jessica Rabbit wrote: It was indeed ONLY after the great flood that the eating of the flesh was permitted and only because vegetation was not readily available.

Zebonka12 wrote: "Women were considered property for thousands of years too" And it's going to take a lot of hard work to get things back to where they should be!

GratefulFan wrote: Given this history and your choice of these shameful and wrong headed past practices as parallels, would you, or anybody else who might like to weigh in, similarly support the idea of a legally enshrined basic right to life for animals when society is ready for it? A right to be protected from murder like humans essentially? I would guess yes as you've chosen as comparison principles that we do not view as matters of individual conscience but as inalienable rights. Is that correct? Would you support that?

Q NUT wrote: All the benefits attributed to a vegan diet in this thread are exaggerated. In fact vegetarians don't live longer than omnivores and in all likelihood is detrimental to most people.

The Real Wizard wrote:

Q NUT wrote: All the benefits attributed to a vegan diet in this thread are exaggerated. In fact vegetarians don't live longer than omnivores and in all likelihood is detrimental to most people.

There is no shortage of propaganda from the meat and dairy industry to reinforce that view. But there is very little science to support it. It is now undebatable that a very high percentage of cases of heart disease and cancer come from animal products.

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: raising children as vegans is child abuse.

Q NUT wrote: Vegetarians are more likely to be B-12 deficient than omnivores and studies consistently show this.

Many researches believe that meat was at least partly responsible for the development of our brain during evolution. So vegetarians have meat to thank that they are able to use their brain to criticize meat :)

GratefulFan wrote: It's less about CoQ10, B12, Zinc, iron, calcium, those little balls that form when you break a thermometer, etc. and more about the idea that is veganism and vegetarianism is a personal choice. People who not only want to excuse themselves from the traditional food chain but everybody else along with them on the basis of their own personal beliefs have lost that perspective.

Zebonka12 wrote: It's not child abuse to raise a child on a vegan diet.

GratefulFan wrote: If you feed your vegan child a vegan cat are you still kind of obnoxious?

thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Vegetarianism = healthier than omnivorous diet. The key is to limit your intake of meat as much as possible.

Sandravegan wrote: I will worry about the plants when they start screaming out in pain and trying to run away from me when I want to eat them.

Zebonka12 wrote: Yep.  In people over the age of 60, veganism is actually very, very lethal.  Brian probably has about eight months left.   By the time he's done being a vegan, he'll probably look like THIS: link  so I'd get the farewell cards together folks.  This is a day of mourning.

kdj2hot wrote: Vegans arent as healthy. They miss a lot of crucial vitamins.

Heavenite wrote: The literature from The Vegan Society says there only two important nutrients that cannot be obtained from a proper vegan diet, Vitamins D and B12. Vitamin D can be readily acquired using sunlight, so that just leaves B12 as the one thing they cannot replace. The question for them therefore seems to be whether they are willing to take animal based supplements to get it or sacrifice themselves for their principles. I think Sandravegan made it clear which side of the fence she sits on. Personally I think its not the best thing to sacrifice oneself in the above manner, but as both Sandravegan and The Real Wizard pointed out, there are plenty of omnivores amongst us who are unhealthy. And it seems pretty clear that this is largely because they don't eat anywhere near enough plant material and other unprocessed foods. I used to be really bad myself in that respect, but I have gradually kept improving as I get older. I take lots of herbal (plant based) supplements these days and try to stay off processed rubbish as much as possible despite the fact that, like most people, I really having developed a taste for it, especially when I was younger of course.

Heavenite wrote: The literature from The Vegan Society says there only two important nutrients that cannot be obtained from a proper vegan diet, Vitamins D and B12. Vitamin D can be readily acquired using sunlight, so that just leaves B12 as the one thing they cannot replace. The question for them therefore seems to be whether they are willing to take animal based supplements to get it or sacrifice themselves for their principles. I think Sandravegan made it clear which side of the fence she sits on. Personally I think its not the best thing to sacrifice oneself in the above manner, but as both Sandravegan and The Real Wizard pointed out, there are plenty of omnivores amongst us who are unhealthy. And it seems pretty clear that this is largely because they don't eat anywhere near enough plant material and other unprocessed foods. I used to be really bad myself in that respect, but I have gradually kept improving as I get older. I take lots of herbal (plant based) supplements these days and try to stay off processed rubbish as much as possible despite the fact that, like most people, I really having developed a taste for it, especially when I was younger of course.

Heavenite wrote: Like with so many things, it is a matter of balance.

Q NUT wrote: There's no doubt that an omnivorous diet is the natural one.

mick_g wrote: I think it's unethical to eat meat, because it is not something we need to do. We can change it for vegetables, helping both the environment, and feeding the world, and probably we are healthier off as well. AND the animals don't have to suffer anymore, and have their precious lifes shortened. and talking about meat eating as a natural thing to do, i wonder how many would continue eating meat, if they had to slaughter the animals themselves, and prepare it...

The Real Wizard wrote: Yes, at the moment. There's also no doubt that evolution could create a new natural diet. If generations of people didn't eat food from an animal, we would evolve to be able to function without it and ultimately reject it.

Q NUT wrote:

The Real Wizard wrote: There's also no doubt that evolution could create a new natural diet. If generations of people didn't eat food from an animal, we would evolve to be able to function without it and ultimately reject it.

This assumes that the new diet would have no bad consequences which is questionable.

Heavenite wrote: That much is true. But we all know how long evolution takes. I think science would be the more realistic answer for those like yourself who don't want to miss out nutritionally. At least as far as science and vegetarian/vegan sources can do that. Just on Vitamin B12, do you know the product Vegemite? Its made out of yeast and is a rich source of it. Australians love it as a rule, but it hasn't caught on that much around the world. It strikes me that eating that stuff would be as close as possible to getting a non animal replacement for Vitamin B12, which even The Vegan Society say is effectively essential for good health.

GratefulFan wrote:

mick_g wrote: I think it's unethical to eat meat, because it is not something we need to do. We can change it for vegetables, helping both the environment, and feeding the world, and probably we are healthier off as well. AND the animals don't have to suffer anymore, and have their precious lifes shortened. and talking about meat eating as a natural thing to do, i wonder how many would continue eating meat, if they had to slaughter the animals themselves, and prepare it...

I live in Canada, and when you live in Canada but not in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver it's wonderfully, blessedly difficult to escape the realization that human beings are part of a stunning and sometimes cruelly beautiful natural system with almost unfathomable widsom in it's every breath. And we *are* part of the natural world, not an invasive species as many modern urban philosophs would have it, bad human behaviour notwithstanding. We're not "superior" to the "lower" animals any more than a fox is "superior" to a "lower" rabbit. That is a fallacious indulgence of people who as far as I can tell are projecting a model for sorting things that begins with their own obnoxious and thoroughly misplaced sense of their own superiority. Humans are apex predators, just like lions and grizzlies and crocodiles and where we interact directly with the natural world through activities like hunting humans play a vital role in the health of ecosystems. I don't personally hunt, and never would, but hunters are my family, coworkers and friends. I don't suffer under the kind of delusions that Brian May does about the characters of those who hunt wild game, or inexplicably cast the eating of venison as "frivolous" as has been done here. If anything the deep respect hunters have for the animals they kill is far more profound and reality based than your average badger hugger or self-fascinated vegan.
Agriculture is not strictly predation, and we mostly do it badly right now, but we do it badly in addressable ways. Comparisons have been made here between the treatment and consumption of animals and past treatment of women and black people. We were always wrong to devalue the humanity and potential of anybody based on things like race or gender or class. Always wrong. Deeply wrong. Similarly there is a growing recognition that we have always been wrong where we have failed to adequately see animals as fully sentient beings whose physical, mental and emotional experience is important, particularly when that experience includes drastically reduced quality of life and needless suffering. But that is a completely different concept than whether or not they should be taken for food. When did that become wrong? Certainly it's not wrong when other animals do it. It's wasn't wrong in times past when alternate means to meet nutritional requirements were unknown or otherwise out of reach. Few but the most virulent of animal rights nutcases would argue it's wrong today in remote communities like the Canadian Arctic region where food flown in to already impoverished communities costs anywhere from two to four and more times that of food in downtown Toronto. Of course Brian May would likely tell them to move, like he tells farmers to farm something else, with absolutely no regard for personal history, values or experiences outside his own. Somebody here said it "might" be okay to hunt deer around cities, in some special cases that made sense their head. So consuming animals then does not fit with the absolute moral position of we've come to with regard to things like slavery and inequality. People still want to use it though, taking all the emotional power of the argument and none of the burden of rationality or logic.
Livestock are so much more than just dumb beasts waiting around inertly to be murdered by humans. They are a vital part of sustainable agriculture through their conversion of sunlight to food and their cycling of nutrients back to the land, for example. And they are infinitely valuable just in the wonder of their being, a fact not changed by the fact that their lives do not end naturally. It's a complete arrogance for vegans and vegetarians and militant animal rights people to imagine that they alone have the market cornered on compassion and respect for animals. I guarantee I don't have an ounce less regard for any animal on the planet than any of you, though I convert my own experiences and feelings into different conclusions. The personal rejection of meat eating is a perfectly reasonable response to our human capacity for empathy and compassion, but so is a response of wonder, gratitude, acceptance and humility in the face of a biological reality that death, even our own death, begets life in the almost impenetrably wise and complex natural system we are part of.
Get over yourselves. Really. You're far less important than you think and far less equipped to convert your personal and thus necessarily limited set of experiences and beliefs into a moral panacea for the rest of the world you imagine to be based on any kind of objective truth. It's not. It's completely subjective, and a dangerous type of subjective as it so easily sweeps people and ideas in almost exclusively on the emotional appeal. Witness the sorry state of the UK badger cull debate for a painfully current example.
Nice post Grateful Fan. More needs to be done for animal welfare while they are alive and sometimes to the manner in which they are killed. But that doesn't mean we should feel guilty about using them as a source of food. Once the animal is dead, it doesn't know anything, just like the rest of us.

Heavenite wrote: More needs to be done for animal welfare while they are alive and sometimes to the manner in which they are killed. But that doesn't mean we should feel guilty about using them as a source of food. Once the animal is dead, it doesn't know anything, just like the rest of us.

GratefulFan wrote: I think the myth making on that one came from the soy industry with their "Real Men Eat Soy" press release in response to the Harvard study that raised the red flag in the first place. Is it not common sense for a man to limit how many times a week he floods his body with what are essentially estrogens in the same way it is common sense to limit red and processed meat consumption, particularly as the science on it remains unclear?

Q NUT wrote:

GratefulFan wrote: I think the myth making on that one came from the soy industry with their "Real Men Eat Soy" press release in response to the Harvard study that raised the red flag in the first place. Is it not common sense for a man to limit how many times a week he floods his body with what are essentially estrogens in the same way it is common sense to limit red and processed meat consumption, particularly as the science on it remains unclear?

emrabt wrote: [quote]Ever heard of heart disease? Vegans don't suffer from it[/quote] Amazing, has anyone told Robin Gibb, long time vegan, who had heart disease, plus a whole bunch of liver problems? I'm sure he'd be thrilled that he couldn't get it, so would Dick Cheney, his 7 or 8 heart attacks never happened. Typical propoganda, pleased either do some real research or be quiet, you are making all vegans look like idiots. Well planned Vegan diets COULD prevent heart disease, but so can well planned ANY diets, poorly planned vegan diets can lead to it.

Q NUT wrote: Maybe a vegetarian diet isn't as healthy as it is made out to be. Maybe there is a better way. If you think you do better on a vegan diet then fine, I'm not against that. However, when vegans/vegetarians rant about the "harmfulness" of animal foods that is when I call BS on it.

Q NUT wrote: I wonder why then that vegans are sometimes found to have lower bone mineral density than non-vegans - link

Q NUT wrote: @GratefulFan I found the full paper of this study which was the results from "2 Prospective Cohort Studies". This illustrates the problem with Epidemiology studies - Food Frequency Questionnaires and confounding. For example this study showed that those who ate more Red Meat tended to smoke more, exercise less, less multivitamin use, more overweight etc. The authors attempted to "adjust" for these differences and in the end there was only a 13% increase risk which in Epidemiology is nothing. Futhermore guess what meat was included in the "unprocessed" category? "Hamburger" and "beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish". I'm not making this up I can send you the study if you are interested. Another interesting thing in this study is that as red meat consumption went up cholesterol went down! In your article the writer correctly point out that "Well, no we can't say there's cause and effect here." Exactly!