If it happen that's one day all animals are able to think and communicate with human beings. Would u dare to eat them

If they wanted me to, sure.

sure, it's not like I get to meet my food. I'd just continue to stay away from dog meat, cat meat and anything else I've ever had as a pet.

Humans and animals have communicated since the dawn of human history. Of course I would eat them when I'm hungry. Is this one of those guilt trip question from a vegetarian?

And if it happens one day that a chicken crosses the road, knocks on my door, and tells me that they do not appreciate being made into processed meats to go into my lunch I will make sure not to eat any more chicken.

Can anyone explain to me why veggie zealots and religious zealots kind of sound the same?

Do I sound the same as a religious zealot? I hope not...

I don't eat it anyway, and I wouldn't even if I knew they didn't feel pain, as it's simply unhealthy for you to begin with, as I outlined in the anarchy thread.

LOL! Hey, for the vegetarians, have you ever read The Secret Life of Plants? If you found out that plant life can communicate with each other and humans would you stop eating veggies as well?

This statement is often made by people trying to rationalize that since plants feel pain, it must be okay to kill animals.

For plants to feel physical pain, they must have some sort of organized tissue which, upon stimulation, would activate a structure in the plant that is conscious and could perceive the stimulation as painful. There are no structures within plants that are analogous to the pain receptors, neurons, and pain-perceiving portions of the brains of animals. Animals, being mobile, benefit from their ability to sense pain; but plants simply have no biological or evolutionary need for the experience of pain.

In any case, if somehow, beyond all current reasoning, plants are able to feel pain, then there is always frugivorism. Which is only eating fruit. Fruit is given freely by the plant, and does not kill it.

hahaha... I love these threads. The vegetarians come in all high and mighty, and some of the meat eaters try to demoralize them.

I too, dislike the manner in which this post is started.

Druidus, you know that I have defended vegitarians in threads before...you guys eat whatever makes you happy. I don't eat much meat as it is, but I tire of the vegitarian condescention, which seems to come from nearly every thread that gets started on the topic.

It is very much like constantly being told that you are going to hell in the religous threads, it gets old.

I think that vegitarians are correct in looking at the economy of meat eating; how much grain it takes to get a pound of meat...etc. It makes sense, and I agree with it 100%. I like chicken though and if want a chicken sandwhich for lunch I don't want to get a condescending uppity attitude attack...

That is what most of these discussion feel like...

Haha! Okay. Just wondering.

I agree with you there. But not all vegetarians are like that. I, like you, hate that attitude as well.



Not to further apply your generalization of vegetarians , but there are good substitutes for chicken out there. You just have to find the brand.

Thanks for the explanation!

You're going to veggie hell for that, just so you know.

*munches her chicken curry*

Huh? What we talking about? Oh...vegetarianism...

*shrugs* Meat is one of the cornerstones of most people's diets. Although, in my case, it's mostly substituted for cola and snack food ....man I'm gonna be fat when I'm older...but anyway, it's a silly question. Animals CAN'T communicate verbally with us, and I doubt any other species will ever achieve such a level of development while humans are still around to see it

Yeah, animals can't communicate verbally, but they can definitely communicate in their own ways. Trust me, I know when my ferrets are telling me things like "I want a treat", "I'm not feeling well" and "Leave me alone".

My ferrets are the reason I don't eat meat anymore. I see all animals equally, I don't see why it's okay to eat a cow but not a dog. They're all the same.

And I'd also like to add that (in my opinion) there are more defensive meat-eaters than there are "veggie zealots". I've had to defend my perspective so many times, I absolutely refuse to debate it anymore. If you want to ask me questions, fine. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Well, I have no intention of making you defend your position Whether it's beef, or rufage that's passing through your digestive system is of absolutely no concern to me

I have to say that if animals could communicate intelligently with me, then I wouldn't eat them out of sheer politeness. If however, they cannot request or give good reason to avoid being my entree, they will be treated as the lower rung of the food chain nature made them out to be.

So would you eat a mute person? They cannot request to not be your entree. Request enough for me, is seeing the horror and pain in the eyes of a creature being slaughtered. Even if that wasn't there, however, it doesn't change the fact that we are, naturally, folivores. Eating meat is simply unhealthy, for a myriad of reasons.

A couple of months ago I temporarily went insane, and attempted to become a vegetarian, but I later realized how much I love cats.........uh, I mean chicken.

*wonders if it was Druidis she had a big long debate with way back when about how vegetarianism is an ideal some people choose to live by...sort of like religion. It is not somehow our "natural way of life" *

Why did "God" make us omnivoirs if he didn't want us eating meat??

It was, but since then I've come across more information.



What if "God" doesn't exist? What then? Oh, and even in the bible, it says in Genesis that he gave us the plants to eat, but it doesn't say the animals.


Alright, Seraphina, I know this will launch into a debate, but I like to debate with you. It's very refreshing!

Here you are, from my other post:

Teeth, Incisors:

Carnivores: Short and pointed
Omnivores: Short and pointed
Herbivores: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Humans: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

Teeth, Canines:

Carnivores: Long, sharp and curved
Omnivores: Long, sharp and curved
Herbivores: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
Humans: Short and blunted

Teeth, Molars:

Carnivores: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
Omnivores: Sharp blades and/or flattened
Herbivores: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
Humans: Flattened with nodular cusps

Facial Muscles:

Carnivores: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
Omnivores: Reduced
Herbivores: Well-developed
Homans: Well-developed

Jaw Type:

Carnivores: Angle not expanded
Omnivores: Angle not expanded
Herbivores: Expanded angle
Humans: Expanded angle

Jaw Joint Location:

Carnivores: On same plane as molar teeth
Omnivores: On same plane as molar teeth
Herbivores: Above the plane of the molars
Humans: Above the plane of the molars

Jaw Motion:

Carnivores: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Omnivores: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
Herbivores: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Humans: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

Major Jaw Muscles:

Carnivores: Temporalis
Omnivore: Temporalis
Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids
Human: Masseter and pterygoids

Mouth Opening vs. Head Size:

Carnivore: Large
Omnivore: Large
Herbivore: Small
Human: Small

Chewing:

Carnivore: None; swallows food whole
Omnivore: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary
Human: Extensive chewing necessary

Saliva:

Carnivore: No digestive enzymes
Omnivore: No digestive enzymes
Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

Stomach Type:

Carnivore: Simple
Omnivore: Simple
Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers
Human: Simple

Stomach Capacity:

Carnivores: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Omnivores: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
Herbivores: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
Human: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract

Length of Small Intestine:

Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length
Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length
Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length
Human: 10 to 11 times body length

Colon:

Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth
Omnivore: Simple, short and smooth
Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated
Human: Long, sacculated

Liver:

Carnivores: Can detoxify vitamin A
Omnivores: Can detoxify vitamin A
Herbivores: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

Kidney:

Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine
Omnivore: Extremely concentrated urine
Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine
Human: Moderately concentrated urine

Nails:

Carnivores: Sharp claws
Omnivores: Sharp claws or semi-flattened nails
Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
Human: Flattened nails


Once within the stomach, meat requires digestive juices high in hydrochloric acid. The stomachs of humans and herbivores produce acid less than one-twentieth the strength of that found in carnivores.

Another crucial difference between the meat-eater and the vegetarian is found in the intestinal tract, where the food is further digested and nutrients are passed into the blood. A piece of meat is just part of a corpse, and its putrefaction creates poisonous wastes within the body. Therefore meat must be quickly eliminated. For this purpose, carnivores possess alimentary canals only three times the length of their bodies. Since man, like other non-flesh-eating animals, has an alimentary canal twelve times his body length, rapidly decaying flesh is retained for a much longer time, producing a number of undesirable toxic effects.

One body organ adversely affected by these toxins is the kidney. This vital organ, which extracts waste from the blood, is strained by the overload of poisons introduced by meat consumption. Even moderate meat-eaters demand three times more work from their kidneys than do vegetarians. The kidneys of a young person may be risk of kidney disease and failure greatly increases.

The inability of the human body to deal with excessive animal fats in the diet is another indication of the unnatural act of meat-eating. Carnivorous animals can metabolise almost unlimited amounts of cholesterol and fats without any adverse effects. In experiments with dogs, up to one half pound of butterfat was added to their daily diet over a period of two years, producing absolutely no change in their serum cholesterol level.

On the other hand, the vegetarian species have a very limited ability to deal with any level of cholesterol or saturated fats beyond the amount required by the body. When over a period of many years an excess is consumed, fatty deposits (plaque) accumulate on the inner walls of the arteries, producing a condition known as arteriosclerosis, hardening of the arteries. Because the plaque deposits constrict the flow of blood to the heart, the potential for heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots is tremendously increased.

As early as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that ninety to ninety-seven percent of heart disease, the cause of more than one half of the deaths in the United States, could be prevented by a vegetarian diet. These findings are supported by an American Heart Association report that states, "In well documented population studies using standard methods of diet and coronary disease assessment . . . evidence suggests that a high-saturated-fat diet is an essential factor for a high incidence of coronary heart disease." The National Academy of Sciences also reported recently that the high serum cholesterol level found in most Americans is a major factor in the coronary heart disease "epidemic" in the United States.

Further evidence of the unsuitability of the human intestinal tract of digestion of flesh is the relationship, established by numerous studies, between colon cancer and meat-eating. One reason for the incidence of cancer is the high-fat, low-fiber content of the meat-centered diet. This results in a slow transit time through the colon, allowing toxic wastes to do their damage. States Dr. Sharon Flaming of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of California at Berkeley, "Dietary fiber appears to aid in reducing . . . colon and rectal cancer." Moreover, while being digested, meat is known to generate steroid metabolites possessing carcinogenic (cancer-producing) properties.

As research continues, evidence linking meat-eating to other forms of cancer is building up at an alarming rate. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 1983 that "people may be able to prevent many common cancers by eating less fatty meats and more vegetables and grains." And in his notes on the causation of cancer, Rollo Russell writes, "I have found of twenty-five nations eating flesh largely, nineteen had a high cancer rate and only one had a low rate, and that of thirty-five nations eating little or no flesh, none had a high rate."

Some of the most shocking results in cancer research have come from exploration of the effects of nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are formed when secondary amines, prevalent in beer, wine, tea, and tobacco, for example, react with chemical preservatives in meat. The Food and Drug Administration has labeled nitrosamines "one of the most formidable and versatile groups of carcinogens yet discovered, and their role . . . in the etiology of human cancer has cause growing apprehension among experts." Dr. William Lijinsky of Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted experiments in which nitrosamines where fed to test animals. Within six months he found malignant tumors in one hundred percent of the animals. "The cancers," he said, "are all over the place; in the brain, lungs, panaceas, stomach, liver, adrenals, and intestines. The animals are a bloody mess."

Numerous other potentially hazardous chemicals, of which consumers are generally unaware, are present in meat and meat products. In their book Poisons in Your Body, Gary and Steven Null give us an inside look at the latest gimmicks used in the corporate-owned animal factories. "The animals are kept alive and fattened by the continuous administration of tranquilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and 2,700 other drugs," they write. "The process starts even before birth and continues long after death. Although these drugs will still be present in the meat when you eat it, the law does not require that they be listed on the package."

In Australia, the use of some chemicals, such as diethylstilbestrol, a growth hormone linked with cancer, was banned at the insistence of export markets, by how many other of the abundant drugs and chemicals used in the meat industry will later be discovered as dangerous health hazards? They save meat producers millions annually, but what is the hidden cost in medical bills and death?

Another popular growth stimulant is arsenic. In 1972 this well-known poison was found by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to exceed the legal limit in fifteen percent of the nation’s poultry.

Sodium nitrate and sodium nitrite, chemicals used as preservatives to slow down putrefaction in cured meat and meat products, including ham, bacon, bologna, salami, frankfurters, and fish, also endanger health. These chemicals give meat its bright-red appearance by reacting with pigments in the blood and muscle. Without them, the natural gray-brown color of dead meat would turn off many prospective consumers.

Unfortunately, these chemicals do not distinguish between the blood of a corpse and the blood of a living human, and many persons accidentally subjected to excessive amounts have died of poisoning. Even smaller quantities can prove hazardous, especially for young children or babies, and therefore the United Nations’ joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives warned, "Nitrate should on no account be added to baby food." A. J. Lehman of the FDA pointed out that "only a small margin of safety exists between the amount of nitrate that is safe and that which may be dangerous."

Because of the filthy, overcrowded conditions forced upon animals by the livestock industry, vast amounts of antibiotics must be used. But such rampant use of antibiotics naturally creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria that are passed on to those who eat the meat. The FDA estimates that penicillin and tetracycline save the meat industry $1.9 billion a year, giving them sufficient reason to overlook the potential health hazards.

The trauma of being slaughtered also adds "pain poisons" (such as powerful stimulants) into the meat. These join with uneliminated wastes in the animal’s blood, such as urea and uric acid, to further contaminate the flesh the consumers eat.

In addition to dangerous chemicals, meat often carries diseases from the animals themselves. Crammed together in unclean conditions, force-fed, and inhumanely treated, animals destined for slaughter contract many more diseases than they ordinarily would. Meat inspectors attempt to filter out unacceptable meats, but because of pressures from the industry and lack of sufficient time for examination, much of what passes is far less wholesome than the meat purchaser realizes.

A 1972 USDA report lists carcasses that passed inspection after the diseased parts were removed. Examples included nearly 100,000 cows with eye cancer and 3,596,302 cases of abscessed liver. The government also permits the sale of chickens with airsacculitis, a pneumonia-like disease that causes pus-laden mucus to collect in the lungs. In order to meet federal standards, the chicken’s chest cavities are cleaned out with air-suction guns. But during this process diseased air sacs often burst and pus seeps into the meat. The same system is used in Australia.

The USDA has even been found to be lax in enforcing its own low standards. In its capacity of overseeing federal regulatory agencies, the U.S. General Accounting Office cited the USDA a for failure to correct various violations by slaughterhouses. Carcasses contaminated with rodent feces, cockroaches, and rust were found in meatpacking companies such as Swift, Armour, and Carnation. Some inspectors rationalize the laxity, explaining that if regulations were enforced, no meat-packers would remain open for business.



These are the studies that were conducted in order to determine the health of vegetarians and vegans. The evidence is on our side.

Yale Study
Tests have shown that vegetarian have twice the stamina of meat eaters. At Yale, Professor Irving Fisher designed a series of tests to compare the stamina and strength of meat-eaters against that of vegetarians. He selected men from three groups: meat-eating athletes, vegetarian athletes, and vegetarian sedentary subjects. Fisher reported the results of his study in the Yale Medical Journal.

"Of the three groups compared, ... the flesh-eaters showed far less endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter were leading a sedentary life."
Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were athletes.

Paris Study
A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris. Dr. Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarians and meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The vegetarians won.

Danish Study
In 1986, a Danish team of researchers tested a group of men on a variety of diets, using a stationary bicycle to measure their strength and endurance. The men were fed a mixed diet of meat and vegetables for a period of time, and then tested on the bicycle. The average time they could pedal before muscle failure was 114 minutes.

These same men later were fed a diet high in meat, milk and eggs for a similar period and then re-tested on the bicycles. On the high meat diet, their pedalling time be-fore muscle failure dropped dramatically - to an average of only 57 minutes.

Later, these men were switched to a strictly vegetarian diet, composed of grains, vegetables and fruits, and then tested on the bicycles. The lack of animal products didn’t seem to hurt their performance - they peddled for an average of 167 minutes.

Belgium Study
Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the number of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the meat-eaters averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle recovery time, here, too, the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue far more rapidly than did meat eaters.

These people were neutral, and these studies were valid. They had nothing to gain by lying, and, indeed, they could lose a lot by lying. The majority of the scientists in these tests were omnivorous, however, after the tests, many switched to vegetarianism.

By looking at all this, we can safely conclude that humans are herbivores (folivores). To say anything else is an absurd rationalization, unless you have proof.

I eagerly await your response.

I don't think any of that IS new to be honest....we went over the whole tooth/digestive system already way back in the last debate...I'm not interested in doing it again. The end result was the same points being brought up over and over again, and it all got extremely boring

If I'm gonna have another debate anytime soon, it'll be over soemthing exciting...like why Bradshaw sucks as WWE champion, or why the asylum issue ticks me off so much.

Some of that is new. I put the comparison there as complementary data. After researching that extensively in a few anatomy books at my local library (Iqaluit Bi-centenial Library, for anyone who wants to know), I have discovered that the comparison points are valid. I defy you to refute them!

lol

Mute people have absolutely no problem communicating intelligently with me, nor have I ever considered them to be on the lower rungs of the food chain.

Really now, surely guilt trips have proven largely ineffective against the standard omnivore? Particularly when so easily refuted.

Alright, what about a mute, deaf, blind, person, who also has their legs and arms cut off. They certainly cannot communicate intelligently with you now.

Seriously though, I meant that in jest!

lol

I have been eating meat for at least 2 meals every day for as long as I can remember and I am still healthy, meat gives us protein which we need to create muscle and it is used as the raw material for many hormones.



Actually humans have a gastric juice PH level of 2.

If we had a PH level of 4-5 it would be as acidic as a tomato or black coffee.

A nice Chianti sauce and Fava beans.

Did that one get added in again? I thought I deleted it...

Yes, I know that. I learned about it in different studies, one comparing guinea pig and rat ph levels in the stomach. For all who wish to know, all creatures with stomachs have a PH level of at least 4, I believe.



Do you realize that protein is as easy, or easier, to get for vegetarians? Where does the cow get the protein that we get from it? The food it eats obviously. What food is that?

Hence why i put "God" in quotes--ok, why were we evolved with teeth that could tear meat? Humans are OMNIVOIRS--get over it.

A...simple way of putting it, but yes, you're correct. Vegetarians no doubt prove that, in a modern world, with modern means of food production, and all the artificial meat substitutes available now, it's true that humans don't NEED meat to survive...that doesn't change the fact that we've developed in a manner that leaves us suited to eat and digest it.

I believe, last I checked, the theory that our drastic increase in brain mass in the early days of our species' forefathers was down to the migration to a partially meat diet.



Cows are fat, lazy, and stupid they don't require the same levels of protein, or brain growth, that a human does.

But, as I say, not gonna debate this again....it's all very boring, and to me it just seems like flogging a dead horse. It is in no way wrong or unnatural to eat meat

Here you are!



Not to be offensive; I just don't like bad grammar.



I cow can tear meat too... But it still doesn't have the jaw structure or teeth of a cow. Neither do we. Maybe you need to post some actual info in your thread, if you hope to convince me.



Humans are folivores. Get over it. I'm not trying to put you on a guilt trip, or whatever, I'm just saying what is.

Eat whatever the hell you want. I don't care.

Actually, it was because of an increase in group size (and thus complexity), as well as our advance onto the open plains. We required the extra brain size to deal with the social aspects of our groups, as well as to meet the new challenges on the savannah.



Cows are not "fat, lazy and stupid". It has been shown, that given the chance to grow up in a natural setting, cows are very active, and very lean, as well as being quite intelligent. You obviously did not get the reasoning from my post, since we, supposedly, need to get our protein from them, then we obviously can get it from what they eat. It does not matter anyway, as protein is plentiful in the vegetarian world.



Really? You think so? Actually, it's quite unhealthy, for us, anyway.



Of course, that is, in your opinion. Which doesn't make it any more valid then anyone elses. No matter how strongly you believe them. I realize that very fact, which is why I don't personally attack those who eat meat.

If you don't care, why are you trying so hard to convince us it IS wrong?

Anyway...off to bed. Work tommorow. As I say, can't be bothered argueing the issue anymore...we've been over it over and over, and ended up just going in circles. I prefer arguements which actually go somewhere.

Ok, I'll admit that I've never heard that word before--yet when I went to dictionary.com, they apparently have never heard of it either...the closest I cant gather is its a foliage-eater?? The only references I could find were of marsupials and reptiles, NEITHER of which is HUMAN (or mammal). You still have not addressed the fact that humans have pointed teeth (CANINES)--why would an herbivore or FOLIVORE have such teeth??? Just cuz you feel its morally wrong to eat meat doesn't mean you can change the way human are evolved.

Not trying to convince you of anything. I didn't say it was morally, or ethically wrong (although I believe it to be so), I simply stated facts about how it is unhealthy.



I probably shouldn't have used that word. Technically, it means a herbivore, who specializes in leaves, however, it can also be considered a synonym for herbivore, in some cases.



Our canines are spade shaped, and used for ripping the tough skin of fruits and veggies. Spade shaped like other herbivores, but not conically shaped, like carnivores and omnivores.



I'm not changing it at all.

Just because you need rationalizations for you to eat meat doesn't mean you can ignore the facts. You still have not refuted my information. Go to it.

I don't think that us meat eaters are trying to rationalize meat eating, we are just trying to convince vegetarians that eating meat is not only OK but healthy. Also we evolved as omnivores, we can get nutrients from meat, strict herbivores lack the correct enzymes to get any nutrients from meat.

No, i don't feel the need to, if you'll pardon the expression, beat a dead horse. I'm going to have to agree with Seraphina and say that this is going nowhere. I don't feel the need to argue this over and over, and I have grown tired of you repeating the same things over and over, but still not convincingly. I shall bide my time with more interesting topics that actually go somewhere.....

actually my canines are cone shaped, and much larger then most people, the molars that are right behind them are actually sharp as well, the outer side rises up into a point

would you say that chimps are herbivores? if you say yes your wrong, they hunt and kill animals, like other monkeys for food. no ones telling them to do it, and i have actually seen a cow chewing on another cows bone, like a dog, no one told it to do that either.

i eat meat, my girlfriend doesn't, i have no problem with that, its her choice, as it is the choice of everyone, i am just saying that eating meat is natural for humans.

i have a bunch of vegetarian and vegan friends, and before all the vegetarian food substitutes came out, some of them looked sickly and thin, not good at all, and some did just fine. in case you want to say that some of them just were not eating right, 2 of them lived together and ate almost the exact sam thing, one was fine one was sick.

if you dont want to eat meat that is fine, i choose to, i just dont like people telling me im wrong because my idea is different.

EWWWWW!!! lol

And farts smell better after I've had a bloody steak. Yum!

Completely false. Strict herbivores do have the nescessary enzymes. Where did you get that info?



As posted before, our teeth are most similar to an herbivores. Don't argue the point, actually find some info.



I fully realize that they are omnivores. But then, they have teeth most similar to an omnivores, and not like ours.



And I'm just saying it's not. What is the problem here? I accept that some people will eat meat. Eat want you want! I'm only saying it's not healthy.



Many, many, things can contribute to illness. Nowadays, it is also important to watch your B12 levels. It's produced by bacteria, and most crops, today, are kept as clean as possible from bacteria.



I've said that from the beginning. Eat whatever the hell you want.



Neither do I. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying it's unhealthy.

Glad we've got that cleared up.

I'm pretty much done here. I feel no reason to continue this argument, as I too, can see it is going nowhere.

Good day.

Druidus, do you remember the post earlier where you wondered if you came across like a zealot?

Yes, you do.

o.k. so this cat adopts me, a few days later she's standing at the back door asking to go out. theres some stuff in the way so i sez "gotta go out the front" 'course she goes running to the front door. so does she understand english? is it telepathy? is it "damn, there's got to another way outta here"?

jus' thinkin'

BTW: quit meat 10 yrs. ago, never felt better, won't debate it,
have the gonads to meet yer meal.

light love peace
vulturetotem
(giver of the holy guacamole)
BTW: similar stuff goin' on at "do animals go to heaven" thread

If u are a great doctor in the world and is asked to go to a village to save these villagers from a virus.The only medicine to cure this virus can only be found in the village.To go to this village u have to travel with a camel through the desert.Halfway to the village ur camel suddenly die.And the only way to survive through this desert is to eat this camel meat and drink it blood.For those who eat meat got no problem, but for those who are vegetarian will u eat this camel meat and drink it blood.It happen if u are a vegetarian doctor.Their life's depend on u."The whole village people."Eat or no

for the veggie ppl.....



who should be killed

1. a pit bull who just mauled a child
2. a guy who shot and killed and intruder
3. a terrorist
4. introduced animals who are over populated, destroying other animals, habitats and enviroment causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage
5. cows with mad cow disease


state your reason why

1 yes the pit bull should be destroyed, as it is obviously not well trained, and once an animal has attacked another animal or human, the chances are good that it would happen again.

2 depending if the force is the same as what the intruder would have used... (does the intruder have a gun themselves?) all gun laws need to be gone over with a fine toothed comb, especially in america.. lets hope that irony doesnt save face, and hugh hefner gets shot in the left nut

3 if it is a known terrorist, and has been found of terrorist acts, then for sure. but remember take one out, and there is another to stand in his place.

4 seeing how much introduced animals have ravaged australia, i'd say yes... but those animals that are feral (not the domestic kind which are registered) and owners have to be better educated on steralizing their animals and the general animal care.

5 the animals are suffering put them out of their misery. it also helps stop the spread of the mad cow disease.

ROTFLMAO!

Yes, I'd noticed that...he reminds me of those people who go "Here's this bible passage! And this one! And this one too! Refute that!"

Why does the topic of vegetarianism always turn into a big debate?

Do you people really care what everyone else eats?