Animal rights vs. meat eaters... - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 169 Old 02-02-2004, 01:42 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 19,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
And I can't help but compare the life of a cow in a *hypothetical farm* that has all its needs taken care of to one in India that is respected, yes, but walks around starving with tuberculosis. Is *that* really more humane. I have to stop and think--- would I rather have a shorter life where I am healthy, fed, sheltered, etc... or a *possibly* longer life where I may starve, die of injury, etc...? What would an animal prefer? I really don't know.

 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 169 Old 02-02-2004, 02:09 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have found this dialogue interesting, this speculation on the morality of taking the life of an animal for your own food. There is also the matter of medical/scientific research, which I believe causes far more suffering to these creatures but is on a smaller scale. With the food issue, the consumer has a certain amount of choice in supporting or not supporting certain industries. But even if we could, would we want to stop experimenting on animals when it supposedly benefits us?
I don't know if it is actually beneficial or not, or if it matters. Just another issue to throw into the mix.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#63 of 169 Old 02-02-2004, 02:36 PM
 
Meiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Murrysville, PA
Posts: 8,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
I think when it comes to medical research, if the research is actually relevent and able to be applied to humans, then it is okay.

The product research where "when we applied product y at 100x the normal concentration to the rabbit's eyes, they were damaged." type stuff is crap. Well duh! poisons and acids and alkalies and whatever chemicals cause harm and at higher concentrations they cause more harm. We need research to tell us this??? I don't think so. That's just sadism masquerading as science.

When I think of relevent medical research I think in terms of how diabetic mice respond to different forms of treatment, that kind of thing. The mice aren't suffering as such, are cared for, etc.
I see a difference.

As for the food issue. Something dies Everytime Any creature eats. Vegetarian, herbivore, or not. The only alternative is to starve oneself, and that's not an alternative IMO.

"What will you do once you know?"
Meiri is offline  
 
#64 of 169 Old 02-02-2004, 03:00 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 19,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
There is also the matter of medical/scientific research, which I believe causes far more suffering to these creatures but is on a smaller scale. With the food issue, the consumer has a certain amount of choice in supporting or not supporting certain industries. But even if we could, would we want to stop experimenting on animals when it supposedly benefits us?
Right now I am concentrating on improving the "humanity" of my food sources. Next, I will jump on the shampoo/soap bandwagon and start using things that are NOT tested on animals. I don't use cosmetics.

Medical research I see as different, but there is still a lot of "crap" research out there than produces nothing but suffering. IMO, there needs to be stricter standards. But, that is also something I am not "into" right now :

 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
#65 of 169 Old 02-02-2004, 03:06 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
They raise animals for organs for human transplants. Pigs I think, and apes.
Most agree that this is acceptable, but most also agree that it is not acceptable to grow humans or human parts for this kind of use. A bit of a tangent, maybe, but I wonder why one seems so wrong and not the other.

What a weird age we live in.
We need a prophet to come down and lay out some commandments for the ethical treatment of our fellow creatures.

Or maybe the Golden Rule DOES still apply?

:
Snowy Owl is offline  
#66 of 169 Old 02-02-2004, 03:29 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Xenotransplantation and medical research are completely different subjects. I have conducted medical research and I can tell you that any lab that does valid research and is worth it's salt complies with the current regulations concerning the ethical treatment of its subject animal. That said, there is a WHOLE whack of super invasive testing done on animals, esp in the field of cancer, MS, and spinal cord research (to name a few). But again a whole 'nother discussion, albeit an interesting one.

As for Xenotransplantation, do we not use the organs from our own speies for transplantation? These people must a have a beating heart in order to qualify as a donor. Is this ethical? Again, COMPLETELY different discussion.

Back OT
Quote:
As for the food issue. Something dies Everytime Any creature eats. Vegetarian, herbivore, or not. The only alternative is to starve oneself, and that's not an alternative IMO.
Well put! WE each have to draw our own lines, draw our own conclusions and live with the choices we make.

ETA: In the case of Xenotransplantation, they current do not raise animals to any great degree for this process. It is still in the experimental phase. I'm pretty sure they've yet to have had a completely successful transplant. The whole major histocompatability complex (MHC) is still giving them grief, I think.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#67 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 01:39 AM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A friend of mine did a ton of research about animal experimentation at one time..........
She found that the vast majority of animal experimentation was done to get the laboratory more $$$. Does anyone know anything about this???
Oh, and OT, but....
I watched this show where they impregnated a cow with some almost-extinct mammal. When they were "done" with the cow, they put it in this metal pen where it couldn't move and simply cut the animal out of its stomach. The cow was flailing around, making horrible, sickly mooing sounds, trying to escape the pain. I guess the scientists didn't want medications interfering with the birth of their project: :Puke
candiland is offline  
#68 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 01:53 AM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You saw this on television, candiland?
Holy cow!
OOOPS...wrong choice of words.
That is sickening.
How could anyone be so detached from the suffering they are inflicting on another creature? And what purpose does such research serve?
Yuck.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#69 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 01:54 AM
 
Bladestar5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: the warm land of sand
Posts: 1,357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yuck! That is cruel.

Bladestar5 is offline  
#70 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 08:13 AM
 
spatulagirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Harpers Ferry, WV
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am coming to this discussion a little late...

But I find it interesting that people who talk about being huge animal rights activists AND eat meat only fight for certain animal rights, such as those whom we tend to keep as pets. Puppies are cute and deserve not to be eaten. Cows smell bad and make great burgers. We should be honest and call it "selective animal rights" because it really isn't for all animals.

Do I think it is realistic for the entire world to go veggie and let all the eaten animals go free? No. But I do wish that more people raised and killed what they needed. I wish more people participated in the actual killing of the animals they eat because they might eat less, go veg or try to think of more humane ways of doing it. I applaud those who raise and slaughter their own animals, not because I agree with it or do it myself as a vegetarian, but because it is at least taking a very active interest in ensuring animal WELFARE. A slaughter house is not a fun place. A chicken factory is not a fun place. And to say you eat meat and kill animals BUT are an animal rights activist because you help safe abandoned pets doesn't sit well with me.

Now if you were to say you believed in animal conservation and the humane treatment of animals AND ate meat that would sit a little better. I understand what Oatmeal was trying to say, she just is very passionate about what she believes in and maybe it came out more heated than she wanted it too.

I myself can't distinguish the difference between a cow and a kitten. I can't look at a kitten and say "oh cuteness come home with me" and then look at a calf/cow and say "damn you are going to be a great burger!" Hence my vegetarianism. It doesn't work that way for everyone. My father loves meat. he thinks I am going to die young because I don't eat it. : But I also consider him an animal conservationist who respects animals and the fact that they give their lives so that he can have steak. I would rather see the cow living on the farm I hope to have some day doing nothing but hanging out chewing cud... maybe giving me some nice organic raw humane milk.

Can you care about animals and still eat meat. Sure. But it is selective (unless you treat every animal you come across with love and still eat it in the end!) respect and some animals have more rights than others. To me that is a bit like saying certain groups of people should have more rights than others. i know some people who would agree and some who would disagree. Truthfully I think its great I can get eggs from chickens and companionship from a dog and cuddles from a cat and milk from a cow. But I can't justify choosing between them and killing some and not killing others. I do wish meat eaters put more thought into where they get their meat and how the animals/birds are raised. It is very very nice to read here that many families do just that. It may not be the solution I (or many others) really want but it sure is better than the alternative!


[bold]OT[/bold]

Quote:
OT & So not funny... I remember reading that Tori Spelling (of 90210 fame) really did do this. Fed her baby soy formula from birth because she did not want to abuse any animals--- including herself, to feed her child
as a huge 90210 fan just need to clear this up Tori Spelling has no kids so it wasn't her. Jenni Garth has two kids with her husband. She is a vegetarian and has a farm (or used to anyway back in the day) she kept rescued animals. However I think this is a weird rumour because she breastfed both her kids. There were stories about her breasts leaking while filming 90210!

Mom to 4! Welcomed Aila Wren on Friday, February 25th!
spatulagirl is offline  
#71 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 12:40 PM
 
flutemandolin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I do not agree that the selection of certain animals for food necessarily means that some animals have more "rights" than others. In the natural world that would mean that animals poorly equipped to escape predators have fewer "rights" than ones with more effective defense mechanisms.

I believe that the concept of rights is a human invention that humans project onto other beings. I don't deny that animals think, communicate, or feel pain, and that humans should treat them with consideration and respect, but do animals have any ability to comprehend the idea of rights? And if they don't, is it our duty as humans to extend our human belief in rights to animals? I think that is the philosophical stumbling block that causes such division between people who support animal rights and those who don't. I do not claim to support the "rights" of animals; I only support what we as humans can do to ensure the welfare of the ecosystem as well as the individual animals we interact with.

I do agree, spatulagirl, that people tend to be selective about the rights that they bestow on animals, if they acknowledge that such rights exist. It would be next to impossible to be completely unselective.
flutemandolin is offline  
#72 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 02:41 PM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by spatulagirl
I am coming to this discussion a little late...

But I find it interesting that people who talk about being huge animal rights activists AND eat meat only fight for certain animal rights, such as those whom we tend to keep as pets. Puppies are cute and deserve not to be eaten. Cows smell bad and make great burgers. We should be honest and call it "selective animal rights" because it really isn't for all animals.

!
I think you're way off.

In this thread, I don't think anyone has said that at all. And, personally, in my life I know FAR more people who are MILITANT vegetarians or vegans and don't do a darn thing about pet over population or animal extinction issues. I find my hippy friends to be more "selective animal rights" people because they just have no interest in animals other than saving the farm ones from being eaten.
anothermama is offline  
#73 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 03:59 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
About the predator/food chain thing....
I got to thinking about this. I think one of the things that distinguishes humans from other predators is our ability to have compassion for other living things. We also have the ability to think things through and rationalize logical consequences of our actions. For example, some male animals will fight to the death over the control of a herd. But (most!) male humans have the ability to rationalize things and do not stoop to this "predator"/instinctual way of thinking. So what is the difference between predators fighting and killing one another and hunting for meat? If a predator's instinct is to fight to the death in certain instances, does that mean we should allow our predator instincts to do this, as well? Where do you draw the line with this argument? It's okay to use the predator argument to eat meat, but not okay to use the predator argument to do "unhumanly" and "uncompassionate" things....
I'm not arguing..... I'm just thinking out loud, and would love everyone's input on this.....
Sorry if I'm not making much sense
candiland is offline  
#74 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 04:28 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
But (most!) male humans have the ability to rationalize things and do not stoop to this "predator"/instinctual way of thinking. So what is the difference between predators fighting and killing one another and hunting for meat?
candiland,

While you do make an interesting point, I think you're missing the fact that this 'fight to the death' mentality isn't exclusive to predators. Prey animals do this as well (i.e. sea turtles competeing for the right to mate, Elks and Moose in rut). This behaviour isn't in any way related to food. It's mostly, if not purely, a territorial thing.

T slightly: And incidentally, I think we humans still retain a bit of this instinct. If a Black bear or some other animal threatened the life of my child, I can guarentee you that, if it came down to it, I'd fight to the death as well!

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#75 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 05:14 PM
 
curlygrrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Outside Asheville, NC
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is a tough one for me. I care a lot about animals, I don't go to the circus because the way they treat elephants is deplorable, i don't think tigers (for example) should be kept as pets, I think everyone should spay and neuter their pets. I think everyone should adopt their pets instead of buying from breeders. (just a couple examples)

But I do eat meat. Does that mean I have no business to care about animals or advocate for responsible treatment of pets and wild animals in captivity? I hope not.

This is a very thought prokoking thread! Thanks for your interesting replies!

Tamara
curlygrrl is offline  
#76 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 06:45 PM
 
Wildcrafter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Maine
Posts: 758
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am against all animal testing. I also am a meat eater who buys organic meat and my dh hunts deer and fishes. I personally feel that meat is necessary in my diet. But I don't think it is necessary for everybody. I believe the animal fat is important especially in cold climates.

I truly support those that want to be vegetarians and I understand their reasoning. But in a way I find it odd that a species that needs an animal product to survive when young(breastmilk) can then go without animal products the rest of their life.
Wildcrafter is offline  
#77 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 07:14 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by spatulagirl
I am coming to this discussion a little late...

But I find it interesting that people who talk about being huge animal rights activists AND eat meat only fight for certain animal rights, such as those whom we tend to keep as pets. Puppies are cute and deserve not to be eaten. Cows smell bad and make great burgers. We should be honest and call it "selective animal rights" because it really isn't for all animals.

Do I think it is realistic for the entire world to go veggie and let all the eaten animals go free? No. But I do wish that more people raised and killed what they needed. I wish more people participated in the actual killing of the animals they eat because they might eat less, go veg or try to think of more humane ways of doing it. I applaud those who raise and slaughter their own animals, not because I agree with it or do it myself as a vegetarian, but because it is at least taking a very active interest in ensuring animal WELFARE. A slaughter house is not a fun place. A chicken factory is not a fun place. And to say you eat meat and kill animals BUT are an animal rights activist because you help safe abandoned pets doesn't sit well with me.

Now if you were to say you believed in animal conservation and the humane treatment of animals AND ate meat that would sit a little better. I understand what Oatmeal was trying to say, she just is very passionate about what she believes in and maybe it came out more heated than she wanted it too.

I myself can't distinguish the difference between a cow and a kitten. I can't look at a kitten and say "oh cuteness come home with me" and then look at a calf/cow and say "damn you are going to be a great burger!" Hence my vegetarianism. It doesn't work that way for everyone. My father loves meat. he thinks I am going to die young because I don't eat it. : But I also consider him an animal conservationist who respects animals and the fact that they give their lives so that he can have steak. I would rather see the cow living on the farm I hope to have some day doing nothing but hanging out chewing cud... maybe giving me some nice organic raw humane milk.

Can you care about animals and still eat meat. Sure. But it is selective (unless you treat every animal you come across with love and still eat it in the end!) respect and some animals have more rights than others. To me that is a bit like saying certain groups of people should have more rights than others. i know some people who would agree and some who would disagree. Truthfully I think its great I can get eggs from chickens and companionship from a dog and cuddles from a cat and milk from a cow. But I can't justify choosing between them and killing some and not killing others. I do wish meat eaters put more thought into where they get their meat and how the animals/birds are raised. It is very very nice to read here that many families do just that. It may not be the solution I (or many others) really want but it sure is better than the alternative!



you hit this one right on the head....

Mona is offline  
#78 of 169 Old 02-03-2004, 07:38 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Wildcrafter
But in a way I find it odd that a species that needs an animal product to survive when young(breastmilk) can then go without animal products the rest of their life.
All herbivore mammals are fine with nursing as infants and going without any animal products for the rest of their lives. An obvious point, but someone had to make it.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#79 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 05:27 AM
 
spatulagirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Harpers Ferry, WV
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
anothermama

Quote:
I think you're way off.

In this thread, I don't think anyone has said that at all. And, personally, in my life I know FAR more people who are MILITANT vegetarians or vegans and don't do a darn thing about pet over population or animal extinction issues. I find my hippy friends to be more "selective animal rights" people because they just have no interest in animals other than saving the farm ones from being eaten.
I don't think that I am way off. Maybe it wasn't said out and out but it was implied when people say that they consider themselves to be animal rights activists because they volunteer at pet shelters or drive hundreds of miles to bring a cat or dog or bunny to its new forever home, just hours away from it being killed. So they save one animal from being killed and then go home and tuck into a juicy burger.

Maybe we all can say we believe in selective animal rights. Maybe some of us care about more animals than others, and they are hardcore vegans who fight for every animal right they come across. Maybe only those people are TRUE animal rights activists. Those very same people might say I am not because I eat dairy and eggs from a local farmer. Who can say?

I don't think that just because your hippy friends don't do their best to fight animal extinction and pet over population means they aren't animal rights activists. Maybe they are and just trying to fight for issues close to home. Maybe they care very passionately about that one issue.

If you are telling me you think you are more of an animal rights activist because you fight against animal extinction and pet overpopulation then I would disagree. I would call you an animal conservationist. Like Bob Barker or my father. Nothing wrong with this! Just like I said in my previous post, meat eaters should be concerned about animals and I am glad that there are some that do! Like yourself, Bob Barker and my father

Mom to 4! Welcomed Aila Wren on Friday, February 25th!
spatulagirl is offline  
#80 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 10:01 AM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by spatulagirl
anothermama

I don't think that I am way off. Maybe it wasn't said out and out but it was implied when people say that they consider themselves to be animal rights activists because they volunteer at pet shelters or drive hundreds of miles to bring a cat or dog or bunny to its new forever home, just hours away from it being killed. So they save one animal from being killed and then go home and tuck into a juicy burger.

Maybe we all can say we believe in selective animal rights. Maybe some of us care about more animals than others, and they are hardcore vegans who fight for every animal right they come across. Maybe only those people are TRUE animal rights activists. Those very same people might say I am not because I eat dairy and eggs from a local farmer. Who can say?

Ok...let me rephrase...
You ARE way off.



I am one of those people you speak of. And I changed the semantics of what I said to say that I am an animal welfare activist, and, yes I eat meat. And I don't think that negates anything.

I've mentioned in another post that I don't belive that animals are *equal* to humans, but I think all deserve humane treatment as best as we humans can provide.

I actively advocate for better conditions for farm animals that I will eat.

I actively advocate for environmental issues to protect wildlife.

I actively advocate for issues dealing with pet overpopulation.

Eating meat doesn't mean I'm NOT an animal welfare activist.

A previous poster mentioned the sematics and said that "rights" really have to do with having rights and, to a degree, equality. And I don't agree that animals have the SAME rights as humans and need EQUALITY with humans. So if thats what you mean, then you'd be right. But because someone works for pet rescue and then comes home to a chicken dinner doesn't mean they are hypocritical or not fully informed or not on the WHOLE bandwagon. You can advocate for animals and still be a meat eater and it doesn't negate a thing.

anothermama is offline  
#81 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 01:42 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
You can advocate for animals and still be a meat eater and it doesn't negate a thing.
What she said.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#82 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 04:22 PM
 
mamabeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: s'times sleep dep, s'times JOY!
Posts: 1,515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
it may not *negate* what you've done for other animals, but (to me!) it doesn't make sense.. helping and rescuing certain animals is GREAT , but turning around and willingly being a part of the suffering of other -select- animals confuses me.

i am with the poster who said she cannot distinctualize between a cow and a kitten. i spent a day in a field with cows when i was 16 (shortly before becoming veg) and they are beautiful, calm, compassionate beings. that day completely changed me.

to me this is a question of rights, but maybe more about humans' (humen's? heh, no..) rights than animals'.. i mean, WHY do we feel we have the right to make life or death decisions for anyone else?

given that 1) we don't need dead animals in our bodies to survive and 2) they may or may not (we don't know!) be sentient and conscious enough that if they could, they would tell us to f*** off, i want to raise my family and be left alone.. i think we can argue that we shouldn't have that right. because rights should be based solely on needs, and should only exist if they cause no harm to others.


mamabeard is offline  
#83 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 05:49 PM
 
shantimama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,379
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
"We don't need dead animals in our bodies to survive."

Would you care to explain this to the Inuit people? How about demonstrating to them where they should be growing their lentils and leafy greens in the Arctic. How will they survive without animal skins to keep warm and the meat of animals and fish to feed themselves? I guess it is possible now, if they ship in artificial, non-local fibres for their clothing and transport all of their food at enormous expense. Is that what you would suggest? Earlier on in this discussion I raised the point that we live on a large planet with incredible diversity in climate and living conditions. One diet does not fit all!! Many societies have historically been vegetarian and thrived and others have been omnivores and thrived. A vegetarian diet for people living in the polar regions makes about as much sense as a diet of seal meat and whale blubber in the Equatorial region.

If I don't have the right to ever kill and eat an animal then I expect my right, as a sentinent being, to the same will be mutually respected wherever I go. Mosquitoes do not have my permission to use my blood, no animal in the wilderness has any right to attack or consume me if it is hungry and I am there.

Let's not forget the bigger picture of the world we live in.
shantimama is offline  
#84 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 05:52 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,753
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by mamabeard
it may not *negate* what you've done for other animals, but (to me!) it doesn't make sense.. helping and rescuing certain animals is GREAT , but turning around and willingly being a part of the suffering of other -select- animals confuses me.
It's not really confusing...as I am not confused by vegetarians who do not advocate for the rights of dogs and cats at the pound or baby seals or who wear leather shoes.

Also, this really isn't about cows not being as 'cute' as cats or dogs. That's not why they are eaten. I love cows too, think they are beautiful, and also make the choice to eat small amounts of beef on occasion. You can argue that meat consumption has become a terrible problem in our culure, it really has and it's deplorable, but once again, what is right for some is not right for everyone.
It is annoying when meat eaters try to convince vegetarians that they need meat to be healthy, and it is annoying when vegetarians try to convince meat eaters that meat is unhealthy or morally wrong.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#85 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 06:32 PM
 
CanOBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a lovely blue bubble
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by mamabeard
given that 1) we don't need dead animals in our bodies to survive
True, we may not need them to survive, but we almost certainly need them to thrive and be optimally healthy.
CanOBeans is offline  
#86 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 06:40 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 3,890
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
CanOBeans,
I highly, highly recommend the book "Diet for a New America". Only those peoples who live in very cold weather year round truly benefit from the consumption of meats and dairy products. And even then, they die much, much younger than those peoples who live on a primarily veggie or vegan diet.
Protein is a myth. During the Irish potato famine, many studies were done regarding the health of the population. While they were very deficient in many areas, they were NOT protein deficient. Potatoes, beans, rice.... it all contains lots of good, healthy protein. And iron.... any dark green leafies provide plenty of iron. Actually, spinach provides more iron per serving than red meat!
sorry, I spent a long time researching all this stuff and I had to clear that up
candiland is offline  
#87 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 06:57 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
candiland,

T I'd be interested in seeing these studies you're talking about w/ regard to the 'Irish Potato Famine'.

Incidentally, the way you're referring to it, it sounds as if you think that 'potato famine' means that all they had to eat were potatoes. On the contray! It means the blight hit all of their potato crops and there WEREN'T any potatoes to eat. They actually didn't really have much of anything to eat and certianly not rice, which would have had to have been imported. I'm not sure on the beans....

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~eas5e/Irish/Famine.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just a little confused (which isn't that unusual for me )

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#88 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 06:58 PM
 
layla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My children and I are all vegetarians and my husband is the lone meat eater. We are vegetarians (well, they are because I am and my husband thinks it's the right thing to do) for philosophical reasons, but there are nutritional aspects to it too. I cook meat for my husband and for holidays and stuff, but their birthday parties are always meat/dairy free. We feel they should be able to indulge in anything offered at their own celebration. People make a much bigger deal of us not eating meat than me of them eating it. I could care less what anyone else eats, but people seem to always take issue with my eating choices. Oh, and btw, my hubby would be the first one to rescue an abused or abandoned animal, or to speak up loud and clear to someone not treating an animal well in his presence. But, he chooses to eat meat. None of it seems very consistant, but that's how we live.
layla is offline  
#89 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 07:02 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
P.S. Cows are A LOT of things i.e. beautiful, cute, calm (sometimes) but compassionate isn't one of those things. Well, let me add this caveat: Cows are like hummans in that not ALL of them are compassionate.

Also, I wantd to add that the reason most Inuit do not live (or did not live) to ripe old ages is not due to their diet, but rather due to their harsh lifestyle, subjected to the elements, hard labour etc. Studies have shown that their cholesterol levels are some of the healthiest world wide. Propb due to the fact that most eat virtually no processed foods.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#90 of 169 Old 02-04-2004, 07:27 PM
 
CanOBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a lovely blue bubble
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland
CanOBeans,
I highly, highly recommend the book "Diet for a New America". Only those peoples who live in very cold weather year round truly benefit from the consumption of meats and dairy products. And even then, they die much, much younger than those peoples who live on a primarily veggie or vegan diet.
Protein is a myth. During the Irish potato famine, many studies were done regarding the health of the population. While they were very deficient in many areas, they were NOT protein deficient. Potatoes, beans, rice.... it all contains lots of good, healthy protein. And iron.... any dark green leafies provide plenty of iron. Actually, spinach provides more iron per serving than red meat!
sorry, I spent a long time researching all this stuff and I had to clear that up
And I highly recommend that you keep researching! Spinach does not provide more iron than red meat -- the supposed high iron content of spinach was due to a misplaced decimal point. A 100g portion of spinach contains 2.1 mg of iron. A 90g portion of beef provides 2.4 mg of iron. Also, the iron in beef (and other animal products) is heme iron, more easily absorbed than the non-heme iron found in plant foods.

I have read Diet for a Small Planet, have the cookbook as well. Came very close to going vegetarian myself. Here are some links to get you started in unlearning what you've learned about nutrition:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html "Historical evidence shows that Man can live healthily on diets which vary enormously in their content. However, it also tells us that, generally, the further one gets from a diet which includes animal products, the greater is the risk of ill health."

Also from that article: "Comparisons of the health and longevity of cultures with different dietary habits confirms that meat eaters, such as Eskimos, Nagas and Maasai, can expect to live twice as long as primitive vegetarians. It may be said that such a comparison is flawed because the situations in which these peoples live is very different but there are cases throughout the world where meaningful comparisons can be made.

In Kenya two tribes, the Maasai and the Kikuyu, live in the same country, the same climate, the same political system and the same environment. The Maasai, when wholly carnivorous, drinking only the blood and milk of their cattle, were tall, healthy, long-lived and slim. The Kikuyu, when wholly vegetarian, were stunted, diseased, short-lived and pot-bellied. Over the last few decades, the Kikuyu have started to eat meat – and their health has improved. Since 1960 the Maasai diet has also changed, but in the opposite direction. They are now eating less blood, milk and meat, replacing it with maize and beans. Their health has deteriorated (34) ."

http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/index.htm -- a site often cited here at MDC. Several interesting articles.

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/frank-talk/index.shtml "Setting the Scientific Record Straight on Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets.
With the ever-accumulating scientific data of recent years about human dietary evolution, the vegetarian picture of a prehistoric Garden of Eden has become hopelessly outdated. So has the "comparative anatomy" argument for vegetarianism, which is no longer supportable given the advent of modern field studies on apes. And the ape studies are themselves increasingly moot where human diet is concerned, given the availability of the direct evolutionary data now available on early human diet. In looking at these two areas of the scientific evidence, this thoroughly documented discussion also explores the differences between Natural Hygiene's essentially "subjective" model for dietary "naturalism" vs. the "functional" model of science based on evolutionary evidence." Here is the main link to the Beyond Vegetarianism site. www.beyondveg.com -- well worth a look.

The above links plus many, many more can be found at http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/#indsites

Food for thought.
CanOBeans is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 8,179

14 members and 8,165 guests
alenamiy , anacrish , davilaolga766 , Dooby , hillymum , IsaFrench , katelove , moominmamma , Ortizmanuella , rhutes , SPrada , Tara 1st Timer , transylvania_mom
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.