quote:

Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick Bahahahaha... Vegetarians diets are healthier. You seriously can not argue that they aren't. Ask any doctor, any professional...

No, that's absolute f**king bullshit. Meat is not unhealthy. Too much of anything is unhealthy. A balanced diet is healthy, and that includes meat.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick Bahahahaha... Vegetarians diets are healthier. You seriously can not argue that they aren't. Ask any doctor, any professional...

Again, you have obviously been brainwashed by your holy organization of animal liberators because every doctor I have talke to about this(I practically grew up in a hospital and know many many doctors) has told me the best practice(not somewhat or second best practice) is a balanced diet of ALL food groups. So keep half informing the pliant and weak, and I'll keep eating my same old diet that every doctor I've spoken to about this has said was okay.

You still haven't explained why my vegan friends are taking vitamins, and I've been told not to bother.

And you have been brainwashed by mainstream society that tells you, animals were put on this earth for eating. And I addressed some of your health issues, but I guess when they come from a "crazy" vegetarian it has no basis right? Probably because I'm brainwashed by the "holy" organization.

Look at it from another standpoint. If you use all the land that cattle use for grazing, for soy production, you have a net gain of 40x the protein, not to mention much more supply of food to feed the populace.

And if you are making the arguement that VEGANS need to take supplements to balance their diet, you are CORRECT. But a VEGAN is not a VEGETARIAN. In fact they are VERY different diet-wise. I'll give you a quick synopsis. VEGANS do not eat eggs or drink milk or any other product extracted from animals (although most drink soy milk). This contributes to a diet lacking in, amongst other vitamins, Calcium, Iron, Zinc, Vitamins B12 and B2. VEGETARIANS on the other hand in general (there are different kinds of vegetarians, but we will take the broad sense) do consume eggs and do drink milk or soy milk. Eggs make up for the lost Iron and Zinc through eggs and milk. B12 is the one vitamin that almost no vegetarian gets enough of, but that's why we have things such as Odwalla.

But if we are using your arguement, then why do people that eat nothing but products derived from animals have to take supplements to make up for lost vitamins?

But when you have been brainwashed to believe that the killing of another sentinent being is ethical, it's easy to attack those that have stepped outside the box.

Oh, so now being told by trained professionals that my diet is healthy is the real brainwashing going on about diet and food intake. You have to be kinding me that you're actually willing to defend your lifestyle to the point where you would tell me that a person(actually a couple at that) that has spent half their life(and for some of them more than half) studying the human body is wrong. That's either balls or sheer stupidity, but I'll go ahead and give you the benefit of the former considering you did correct my usage of vegan. I always get that mixed up for some reason.

Have you ever had a soy burger? Nasty, nasty, nasty. The texture is completely off, it requires way more processing than a real burger, and above all no flavor unless it's been laced with chemicals to add flavor. It's not a bad idea, but it's just no realistic given that the majority of people would prefer real meat over soy.

You answered my question yourself. Unless you go totally out of your way to make sure that you eat certain foods with a vegetarian diet you won't get the nutriotion your body needs and could get through a well balanced diet. I've also been told some products are difficult to find, and when found are quite expensive. So, if my diet isn't bad, doesn't require a lot of effort, and doesn't require me to do anything other than stay in balance why again is your diet more health conscious or practical than mine.

Sometimes thinking outside the box isn't necessary. I'm not trying to convince you to change back or anything, but don't try to convince me that I'm doing something wrong either. I'm just eating what I like and in the amounts the doctor ordered.

Wow, this point has gone way too far.
The health issue is minor compared to the suffering. Who cares if you have to go out of your way, by doing so, you are saving a sentient being. God forbid that you go out of your way to save an infant who had fallen into a puddle, helpless to defend itself. And before you call an infant better then an animal, do a little research. Human children are far less intelligent and alot less aware of thier surroundings and they have no concept of the future. And please, oh please, use the "potential" arguement here. I'd love to exercize my potential powers of Prime Minister, President, or head of the CIA.

There are many arguements in favor of a vegatarian lifestyle, and any "nutritionist", a person who has actually spent thier lives studing nutrition, will tell you that vegatarians are healthier and live longer. Even if you deny this, you can't deny that these animals suffer, which is the bulk of PETA's arguement

That's awesome logic you have there. My goal is to educate, not to assume. Once again, I believe I contribute to the well-being of everyone as much as I can, not just thru animals rights, but human rights as well.
Have you read any of my previous statements? No way in hell is an animals life worth more then a childs, no way in hell. But if it's un-necessary, or for a minor pleasure, then it's still wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick That's awesome logic you have there. My goal is to educate, not to assume. Once again, I believe I contribute to the well-being of everyone as much as I can, not just thru animals rights, but human rights as well. Have you read any of my previous statements? No way in hell is an animals life worth more then a childs, no way in hell. But if it's un-necessary, or for a minor pleasure, then it's still wrong.

What about alot of pleasure? (no, I'm not trying to be pedantic)

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

It's a minor pleasure. If you put it on a scale with suffering, it's definately minor. Try to think of suffering as independent from human experience. Now, we want to elimate 'un-necessary' suffering, or atleast try. Animals can suffer, so we should try to prevent it.

quote:

Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick It's a minor pleasure. If you put it on a scale with suffering, it's definately minor. Try to think of suffering as independent from human experience. Now, we want to elimate 'un-necessary' suffering, or atleast try. Animals can suffer, so we should try to prevent it.

No, how can you evaluate how much pleasure something gives someone else? That is entirely their opinion. And how is the amount of that pleasure relevant to suffering?

EDIT: BTW, don't assume I agree with anything in your original argument to begin with.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by -])ark-Maverick Wow, this point has gone way too far. The health issue is minor compared to the suffering. Who cares if you have to go out of your way, by doing so, you are saving a sentient being. God forbid that you go out of your way to save an infant who had fallen into a puddle, helpless to defend itself. And before you call an infant better then an animal, do a little research. Human children are far less intelligent and alot less aware of thier surroundings and they have no concept of the future. And please, oh please, use the "potential" arguement here. I'd love to exercize my potential powers of Prime Minister, President, or head of the CIA.

Wow, it's people like you that just make me shake my head at society, because I know there's lots of idiots like you out there. Where do you get these asanine analogies? Where is the health issue in taking the child out of the puddle, considering the example you're comparing it to has that part? Are you talking about a puddle of toxic waste? If so, I'd leave the kid there. Sorry if that makes me a heartless prick, but my health is more important to me than the health of some kid that I don't know that's probably already screwed from exposure.

Then you go so far as to say that human children are less intelligent and aware as an animal, so animals are better. Are you comparing to an animal the same relative age, for example a 1 year old child to a 1-2 month old calf. I'd bet you're not, because so far, your arguments have been full of holes and I'd expect nothing different for this one. I won't even say anything regarding your "potential" defense, because you're so far out of touch with reality that I'm sure you actually believe that there are animals out there with a higher potential than humans.

Lastly, I'm sick of your arguments comparing sentient animals to people. It's not even close to the same and you people who use this argument just detract from your cause. When people hear you comparing animals to people they immediately shut off their ears because the speaker obviously has no common sense or sense of reality.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

I'm using a utilitarian approach here; Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number.

Assume 1: Suffering is suffering. An animal can suffer, just like a human can suffer. This can be shown by simple responses that animals have (like when I step on a dogs foot, or an animals is trapped). Their responses represent both pain and suffering. Just like we infer that humans suffer, we can use the same methodology for animals.

Assume 2: Being Human is no way gives us the right to be tyrannical over another species. Yes, in many ways, we are better than non-human animals. But for the simple reason that animals can suffer, we should therefore try to stop that suffering. This is where I use the analogy for allowing women to vote. Yes, they are bilogically different than males, but they are 'reasonable' enough to make an informed decision. We accept their right to vote because their biological differences have no bearing on there "reasonabiliy"; much like animals biological differences have no bearing on them being able to suffer.

So if these two assumptions can be made, then it's clear that suffering is suffering, regardless of who feels it. I doubt you will agree with these premises, but I encourage you to give me reasons why they are not logically sound. Now, would you consider the pleasure from eating meat greater than another sentient beings suffering? So how do I say this in a nice way. Either, you are bias for no logical reason, or, your preceptions of right and wrong are way out the window. Taste is a minor minor pleasure.

Once again, the weakness of this arguement is not that taste is more pleasureful, it's in the two premises above. To agrue the latter would be silly, I think, logically, you'd have agree on this one. Instead, focus in on the assumptions, becaues this is where the weakness lies. Let's go from there...

Nou, good one. You are right there, many of these animals would not exist if we didn't eat them. Cows is a perfect example. My only defense here, is that it's possible for a life to not be worth living. But yeah, this is a good counter-arguement, but the response here would be that just because there are more animals, doesn't make it better, because these animals are living lives that are worse than death.