mad pierrot said:Thanks! It sounds good. I've had whale before, at a sushi bar of all places, and in curry. I was wondering how they'd prepare burger meat from whale. In any case, it's something I'd like to try. I wonder if they have any restaurants in Osaka?
Limonette said:You're right every animal is a sentient creature - that's why I'm a vegetarian, that and for health reasons and environmental reasons.
Good point; but are you saying that it's okay or good if the killed animal gets to be used for human consumption ? Although they don't get the chance to end up on our dinner table, they turn into fertiliser. Isn't that some positive contribution to the nitrogen cycle of the ecosystem/farming/mankind, and hence good according to your standard ?Horizon said:I'm sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news, but, well...Animals get killed by vegetarians as well. Big farms use machinery to collect their crops or whatever and lots of animals like rabbits, snakes, rats, et cetera get chopped up into little bits pretty much and, well, at least the other animals don't go completely and utterly to waste.
All major technological innovation have resulted in an increase in food porduction, leading to supporting a greater population, which then lead to more exploitation of the natural environment by transforming it into agrable fields and paddies. Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?As for environmental reasons, farming isn't really much better than raising that many animals. One still has to steal precious habitat from other creatures for it.
As you've pointed out, the thesis that "protein is essential in higher intelligence" is only a myth. It is probably a corruption of the medical observation that feti, infants, and children who lack the minimum required daily intake of the essential amino acids (highly subjective standard btw) suffer from all kinds of problems including lowered immunity to disease and toxins, slower physical growth, and underdeveloped intelligence. How could they not suffer, for all genetic information are to be expressed through enzymes which is basically protein. But above the minimum required, excess protein intake are just wasted serving no particular pupose other than enriching urine with amino acids dissolved in it. That is another reason why vegetable consumption is far more flexible and wholesome to the human body. O, I forgot, it is also possible to thank the vegetale before you eat it. I have thanked the lettuce I had in my salad; it made me feel quite comfortable and healthy, and my stomach sang a song of praise to the noble lettuce, figuratively speaking.And, according to what I've heard, protein (from meat of course) was what allowed human to evolve our 'intelligence' (although, using that logic, you'd think carnivores would be at about the level of a rocket scientist at one point in their lives, but ehh...)
That's what I thought myself, but please see Mad Pierrot's post #14 here; Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting !!!! or my response to it here I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot.. In summary, Siddhartha Buddha died of chronic mesenteric infarction, that is internal bleeding of the intestines following a circulatory shutdown, after eating a good dish of pork. It appears that the primitive church of Buddhism did not prohibit the eating of meat but only did the individual's behavior (participating either actively or passively) of killing an animal for food, and neither did the Buddhist canon of Tibet, Mongolia, China, Korea, or Japan which all descended as translations from a now-lost sanskrit or pali writings of this early school of Buddhism.And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?
wouldnt all of japan be vegetarian then?Horizon said:And, Lexico, aren't Buddhists supposed to be vegetarians...? I don't really know much about them, but I'm pretty sure I heard that one...:?
lexico said:Good point; but are you saying that it's okay or good if the killed animal gets to be used for human consumption ? Although they don't get the chance to end up on our dinner table, they turn into fertiliser. Isn't that some positive contribution to the nitrogen cycle of the ecosystem/farming/mankind, and hence good according to your standard?
All major technological innovation have resulted in an increase in food porduction, leading to supporting a greater population, which then lead to more exploitation of the natural environment by transforming it into agrable fields and paddies. Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?
As you've pointed out, the thesis that "protein is essential in higher intelligence" is only a myth. It is probably a corruption of the medical observation that feti, infants, and children who lack the minimum required daily intake of the essential amino acids (highly subjective standard btw) suffer from all kinds of problems including lowered immunity to disease and toxins, slower physical growth, and underdeveloped intelligence. How could they not suffer, for all genetic information are to be expressed through enzymes which is basically protein. But above the minimum required, excess protein intake are just wasted serving no particular pupose other than enriching urine with amino acids dissolved in it. That is another reason why vegetable consumption is far more flexible and wholesome to the human body. O, I forgot, it is also possible to thank the vegetale before you eat it. I have thanked the lettuce I had in my salad; it made me feel quite comfortable and healthy, and my stomach sang a song of praise to the noble lettuce, figuratively speaking.
That's what I thought myself, but please see Mad Pierrot's post #14 here; Japan!!!! Please stop whale hunting !!!! or my response to it here I'm working on it, Mad Pierrot.. In summary, Siddhartha Buddha died of chronic mesenteric infarction, that is internal bleeding of the intestines following a circulatory shutdown, after eating a good dish of pork. It appears that the primitive church of Buddhism did not prohibit the eating of meat but only did the individual's behavior (participating either actively or passively) of killing an animal for food, and neither did the Buddhist canon of Tibet, Mongolia, China, Korea, or Japan which all descended as translations from a now-lost sanskrit or pali writings of this early school of Buddhism.
Kara_Nari said:Tibetian buddhist monks eat meat.
They are the ONLY monks that supposedly do.
NOt only do monks not eat meat because the animals have been killed, but also because of the smell. Hence the reason why they dont eat garlic, onions, spring onions and two other things, which I cant remember off the top of my head.
Perhaps disease, plagues, and one-way/mutual slaughter were natures ways of controlling human populations; wouldn't human suffering kind of balance out that of animals, plants, and nature that were victimised by us humans ?
No, that's not a reason, that's a vegan moralisation of an abstract idea, used in the stead of actual facts in order to forward a isolated agenda--- there isn't anything logical about it.strongvoicesforward said:The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.
Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.
Humans do need meat to survive, unless you want to eat soya everyday. Meat is the prime source of protein in a human diet. the only plant that can give us all the protien we need is soya. On another note meat also provides the energy for our brain and is one of the reasons that man is intelligent. It is the diet of meat that allowed human brains to develop to the point they are at now. A purely vegetarien diet in our past would have left man still up the trees. Humans on a whole are omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and plants. To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies. The problem with todays diet is the meat is to fatty and groomed to our taste. The same goes for plants. If we still had to survive by hunting and gathering we would still have an omnivorus diet. Because of supplements and the way we can control our dietry intake that allows more and more people to live vegan lifestyle. No matter what your choice, if it was down to survival you would eat meat. Only our intelligence allows us to make this choice., and the reason we have that chioce is because of our ancestors diet of meat and plants.strongvoicesforward said:The most valid reason not to hunt whales for meat is that humans do not need meat to survive and therefore any hunting (or raising animals) for meat is therefore not needed. It is simple logic.
Customs, habits, or pleasure for a particular flavor are all reasons that do not make it a necessity and therefore not valid reasons to cause pain, misery, suffering, and death to another being.
yukio_neko^_o said:No, that's not a reason, that's a vegan moralisation of an abstract idea, used in the stead of actual facts in order to forward a isolated agenda--- there isn't anything logical about it.
Mycernius said:Humans do need meat to survive, unless you want to eat soya everyday. Meat is the prime source of protein in a human diet. the only plant that can give us all the protien we need is soya. On another note meat also provides the energy for our brain and is one of the reasons that man is intelligent. It is the diet of meat that allowed human brains to develop to the point they are at now.
Mycernius said:A purely vegetarien diet in our past would have left man still up the trees. Humans on a whole are omnivores. Our bodies are designed to eat meat and plants. To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies.
Mycernius said:To subsists on one or the other is not good for our bodies. The problem with todays diet is the meat is to fatty and groomed to our taste. The same goes for plants.
If we still had to survive by hunting and gathering we would still have an omnivorus diet. Because of supplements and the way we can control our dietry intake that allows more and more people to live vegan lifestyle. No matter what your choice, if it was down to survival you would eat meat. Only our intelligence allows us to make this choice., and the reason we have that chioce is because of our ancestors diet of meat and plants.
Not true for all carnivores. Cats will not eat putrid meat. Dogs and other scavenger animals can become ill after eating putrid or diseased meat. Humans can eat some raw meats without becoming sick. Beef, and some fish spring to mind.5. Humans are very prone to becoming sick from raw meat. Carnivores are able to eat even meat that is putrified.
Although I don't include vegetarians with vegans, because they do not moralise their eating habbits, they are so often brow-beaten by vegans to "go all the way", in order to facilitate some sort of mock-ethical goal.strongvoicesforward said:Yukio, what is abstract about not needing meat to survive? We surely do not. If we did then then vegetarians or vegans would not survive long after adopting those eating habbits.
Vegans represent 2% of the total world population, and they aren't the most popular sub-group on the planet. The work that PETA has done often ostracises them from the public moreso than it endears itself--- As for vegans, it is exactly this moralistic high ground that makes many people rail against them--- This has just been my personal experience with vegans--- I've even seen vegans make statements like "[as for Africans who had contracted HIV from infected bush meat]...haha! Don't eat meat!"... That's nearly an exact quote, I removed an explacative---strongvoicesforward said:Sure, the veg group is small, but I wouldn`t consider them isolated. They are constantly outreaching to the communities they are in and to friends and family. Neither are they shunned by society. Keep in mind, most vegans/vegetarians were once flesh eaters themselves and came to understand that flesh consumption need not be a part of our habbits to survive.
Please, again, stop using absolutes to make your point as in "meat is not needed for survival"--- We all know that vegans are capable of staying alive on a vegan diet though I would love to see a vegan football team versus a non-vegan team---strongvoicesforward said:If meat is not needed for survival, which in this era, it is not, then it is quite logical to choose those actions which do not cause pain and suffering. To choose to cause pain and suffering when it need not be chosen is illogical -- that is if you agree that causing pain and suffering is wrong. I know I do.
Mycernius said:You make some good points, but just for clarification about our digestive tract. If we were supposed to be plant eaters then our appendix [do you mean appendix or intestines???] would be bigger than it is. Our digestive system not only has problems with some meat, but also with cellulose tissue.