Animal Rights Thread!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Luck said:


I'm sorry, but whenever did I say that there weren't vegetables or fruits without those vitamins? Well, never because I can't use citations for a negative, but still, you are just implying. You have just supported my point, and that is that it doesn't matter as long as you keep a balanced diet. That diet would be even more labourous than a vegan diet - more expensive, less food choices (you would be allowed around a couple handfuls of animal food a day and aside from that would eat almost exclusively different veggies to control ldl, fats, nutrients and calories). What is it worth on your diet having a food with no special qualities that's more expensive and really potentially bad for you?
But my sources are saying that most vegan diets don't have the necessary amounts. Please reread it before replying. Check, your sources are actually studying vegan diets with an actual nutrient deficiency, wich doesn't matter either way, because if you can have the healthiest diet, and it makes sense for you, people, animals and the planet, what's keeping you from doing so?

And must I say it before? Meat is usually easier to obtain than veggies replacing the nutrients that meat offers. Maybe countries like India have tofu easily available in the stores since vegetarianism/veganism vegetarianism and veganism in India are almost inexistent. Ovolacto vegetarianism is pretty popular there. At least here in br - and probably in America as well, since veganism is way more common there - you can find tofu everywhere. Also, veggies, cereals, fruits and legumes are way cheaper - remember, if you're eating a pound of meat, you're eating something that took 7 pounds of cereals to produce. is common there, but in most other countries, finding beef and chicken is easier Though I don't disagree some people like eskimos and brazilian indian tribes rely on hunting as their only protein intake, everywhere else there are veggies easily available.. If you know anything about the human nature, it is that humans want to take as little time and money(!) as possible searching for things. We've also discussed how humans have free-will to change their attitude towards what we think ain't right.


I hope that doesn't include healthy meat like cooked fish, because you would be lying if so. Though some fish species may have moderated fat - around 15~35 (40%+ for the canned in oil) - it has high-high-high LDL.Almost everything can be healthy when taken in extreme almost no measurable ammount NO-ONE-eats-this-way moderation.
Click to expand...

I always go overboard with redbold :P
 
Last edited:
I'm going to inject a quick opinion, then a long interesting thought here:

Y'see... it's simple. Humans... are animals. There are many animals that eat meat - lions, tigers, dogs, hawks, eagles, crocodiles, lizards... all sorts of little guys hunting other little animals. We are designed to be omnivorous, meaning that we were designed to eat both plants and animals. Therefore, on a biological level, it is not wrong to eat meat. Why would it be an issue that people eat meat?

The reason is because... it's not the issue. The issue is how the animals being fed to us are being treated. A good way to support animal rights is to eat meat from places that the animals are treated with respect, where their lives aren't in shackles with their sole purpose to provide for us. They're healthier, they don't get disease and they don't bring disease to the dinner table. Unfortunately, most meat is not provided in this way.




Anyhow... an interesting point towards animals... it's completely theoretical and rather unethical but it would bring forward some of the most evidence for animal rights, biology and possibly other ideas like Darwinism as well.

What if... for some reason... there was an experiment, up there with the creations of Dr. Tucker from FMA, which involved the combining of a human and an animal? It, of course, would generate huge ethically based issues... but on the other side of the coin, it would greatly influence human rights.

Let's assume that the experiment was the same... and somehow, we could fuse a human with a dog. The human aspect would be able to speak with other people, but at the same time... the dog aspect would be able to communicate with dogs. It could be that their series of behaviours is actually much more complicated than we once thought. It would be a substantial push forward not only for biology, but for animal rights, with the realization of how intellegent and capable dogs really are. Full-out communication would be difficult, mainly because it is most likely completely visual (as dogs cannot make many sounds), and we lack a tail to communicate with.

Now, lets assume that a similar experiment occurs, but rather with a songbird instead of a dog. This might be even more substantial because of the fact that songbirds (as well as birds that imitate speech) actually use the same sections of their brains for their "speech" as we do, and share similar disorders such as stuttering. Could this be that the song itself is not what holds the meaning, but how it is spoken? A merge between a human and a songbird might be able to decipher for humans how this language works. If they can produce their own language, then it could be possible for them to learn ours, or even more strange, we could learn theirs (with a heavy accent, of course).

What if then... we could communicate with eachother? Wouldn't that level of understanding bring the human race more towards our roots and allow ourselves to look at ourselves as a piece of the world rather than a supreme being created solely for exploiting other species? Would such an event be an experimental horror or a monumental move forward in our understanding of the world around us?

...it seems that we created a civilization because we hands. Other species with developed languages do not have hands, but if they did... we might have had competition. I think this is the main reason why we should not only protect animals, but learn about them because of their hidden intelligence that is simply to difficult for humans ro measure.
 
Last edited:
Charon the Ferryman said:
Anyhow... an interesting point towards animals... it's completely theoretical and rather unethical but it would bring forward some of the most evidence for animal rights, biology and possibly other ideas like Darwinism as well.

What if... for some reason... there was an experiment, up there with the creations of Dr. Tucker from FMA, which involved the combining of a human and an animal? It, of course, would generate huge ethically based issues... but on the other side of the coin, it would greatly influence human rights.

Let's assume that the experiment was the same... and somehow, we could fuse a human with a dog. The human aspect would be able to speak with other people, but at the same time... the dog aspect would be able to communicate with dogs. It could be that their series of behaviours is actually much more complicated than we once thought. It would be a substantial push forward not only for biology, but for animal rights, with the realization of how intellegent and capable dogs really are. Full-out communication would be difficult, mainly because it is most likely completely visual (as dogs cannot make many sounds), and we lack a tail to communicate with.

Now, lets assume that a similar experiment occurs, but rather with a songbird instead of a dog. This might be even more substantial because of the fact that songbirds (as well as birds that imitate speech) actually use the same sections of their brains for their "speech" as we do, and share similar disorders such as stuttering. Could this be that the song itself is not what holds the meaning, but how it is spoken? A merge between a human and a songbird might be able to decipher for humans how this language works. If they can produce their own language, then it could be possible for them to learn ours, or even more strange, we could learn theirs (with a heavy accent, of course).

What if then... we could communicate with eachother? Wouldn't that level of understanding bring the human race more towards our roots and allow ourselves to look at ourselves as a piece of the world rather than a supreme being created solely for exploiting other species? Would such an event be an experimental horror or a monumental move forward in our understanding of the world around us?

...it seems that we created a civilization because we hands. Other species with developed languages do not have hands, but if they did... we might have had competition. I think this is the main reason why we should not only protect animals, but learn about them because of their hidden intelligence that is simply to difficult for humans ro measure.
Click to expand...
Interesting points that raise tough questions.

If you want help visualizing what these hybrid creatures might look like I'd check out an artist named Patricia Piccinini, but don't go there if you can't handle the uncanny valley or some small amount of artistic nudity. The piece called "We Are Family" is a good example.
 
There's nothing wrong with eating meat. We need it. It's something we've adapted to eating over a certain period of time.

I mean, I can understand why humans as a race kill animals for meat digestion, but murdering or slaughtering a defenceless animal for fun? That irks me. I can't understand how a human could possibly kill an animal that's minding its own business for fun. It might have a family and friends for all you know.

Sure, animals fight each other all the time. That's their nature. Just because they fight and sometimes kill each other doesn't mean we should, does it? No. We don't go around killing humans for fun, (well, most of us. There might be a couple of idiotic psychopaths that do, but..) so why should we kill animals? They have the same rights to live as a human does.

Though, I'm going to bring up a point here. Think about it. Humans are physically meant to be herbivores.

Meat-eaters: have claws (lol rly?)
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Thanks to some site for the info, of course. This is all too technical for me. D8
 
Last edited:
Scarf, the artist you mentioned is amazing! Can't believe I've never heard of her.
Her play with hybrid anatomy reminds me much of Naoto Hattori.
JF, thanks for the interesting info! Though I suggest you look further through the thread if you really think we need meat to live - not like that at all.
Charon, I really don't think makes any difference on ethic grounds as for who is more intelligent / looks more like us / can communicate with us. However, yeah, it'd be for sure a big big deal on how our society overlooks animal abuse.
 
Juicy Fruit said:
There's nothing wrong with eating meat. We need it. It's something we've adapted to eating over a certain period of time.

I mean, I can understand why humans as a race kill animals for meat digestion, but murdering or slaughtering a defenceless animal for fun? That irks me. I can't understand how a human could possibly kill an animal that's minding its own business for fun. It might have a family and friends for all you know.

Sure, animals fight each other all the time. That's their nature. Just because they fight and sometimes kill each other doesn't mean we should, does it? No. We don't go around killing humans for fun, (well, most of us. There might be a couple of idiotic psychopaths that do, but..) so why should we kill animals? They have the same rights to live as a human does.

Though, I'm going to bring up a point here. Think about it. Humans are physically meant to be herbivores.

Meat-eaters: have claws (lol rly?)
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Thanks to some site for the info, of course. This is all too technical for me. D8
Click to expand...
Humans: Have been using tools for millions of years to kill meat which is plenty of time to loose all the things needed to hunt and in those millions of years we have become increasingly more omnivores thus, like every other omnivore, we will have sharp teeth like carnivores, and bodily functions like herbivores.
 
That diet would be even more labourous than a vegan diet - more expensive, less food choices (you would be allowed around a couple handfuls of animal food a day and aside from that would eat almost exclusively different veggies to control ldl, fats, nutrients and calories). What is it worth on your diet having a food with no special qualities that's more expensive and potentially bad for you?
Completely circumstantial. Less food choices? No, you can still choose to eat your vegan foods on occasion while still having meat. What is it worth? Well, unlike you, I enjoy having taste buds. Is it so damn wrong to enjoy eating something with flavor?

Check, your sources are actually studying vegan diets with an actual nutrient deficiency, wich doesn't matter either way, because if you can have the healthiest diet, and it makes sense for you, people, animals and the planet, what's keeping you from doing so?
I really can't understand what you are saying here.

vegetarianism and veganism in India are almost inexistent. Ovolacto vegetarianism is pretty popular there. At least here in br - and probably in America as well, since veganism is way more common there - you can find tofu everywhere. Also, veggies, cereals, fruits and legumes are way cheaper - remember, if you're eating a pound of meat, you're eating something that took 7 pounds of cereals to produce.
So what if it took seven pounds of cereal to produce? Animals are not meant to make more than they produce.

Though I don't disagree some people like Eskimos and Brazilian Indian tribes rely on hunting as their only protein intake, everywhere else there are veggies easily available.
People prefer taste and texture above all else when eating foods.
Thus, more people eat meat rather than beans because they actually like eating meat more.

and money(!)
Time is money. Time is limited, so people wouldn't care about paying a few more dollars as long as they can go home in time to watch their favorite show.

as possible searching for things. We've also discussed how humans have free-will to change their attitude towards what we think ain't right.
People won't change as easily as you think. You and I both know that.

Though some fish species may have moderated fat - around 15~35 (40%+ for the canned in oil) - it has high-high-high LDL.
I never stated or implied that. Most species of fish are really healthy, and most vegetarians live relatively longer lives when they eat certain species of fish.

Juicy Fruit said:
Though, I'm going to bring up a point here. Think about it. Humans are physically meant to be herbivores.

Meat-eaters: have claws (lol rly?)
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Thanks to some site for the info, of course. This is all too technical for me. D8
Click to expand...
Herbivores have eyes on the side of their face in order to watch out for prey. Carnivores have eyes in the front of their face in order have depth perception when hunting for prey.
Herbivores can also digest cellulose and have really long vermiform appendixes. Humans have a very small appendix, and small appendixes cause appendicitis. Omnivores have a mix of both herbivorous and carnivorous traits.
 
Luck said:

Completely circumstantial. Less food choices? No, you can still choose to eat your vegan foods on occasion while still having meat. What is it worth? Well, unlike you, I enjoy having taste buds. Is it so damn wrong to enjoy eating something with flavor? That's what we're discussing here. Also, if you think vegan cuisine stinks, I'd so gladly cook for you one of these days...

Check, your sources are actually studying vegan diets with an actual nutrient deficiency, wich doesn't matter either way, because if you can have the healthiest diet, and it makes sense for you, people, animals and the planet, what's keeping you from doing so?
I really can't understand what you are saying here. I'm saying these studies you referred to don't mean vegan diet leads directly to malnutrition, the studies we're developed with people with an actual deficiency.

vegetarianism and veganism in India are almost inexistent. Ovolacto vegetarianism is pretty popular there. At least here in br - and probably in America as well, since veganism is way more common there - you can find tofu everywhere. Also, veggies, cereals, fruits and legumes are way cheaper - remember, if you're eating a pound of meat, you're eating something that took 7 pounds of cereals to produce.
So what if it took seven pounds of cereal to produce? Animals are not meant to make more than they produce. That's the point. When you're wasting land, food and natural resources that could be used to feed a lot more people.

Though I don't disagree some people like Eskimos and Brazilian Indian tribes rely on hunting as their only protein intake, everywhere else there are veggies easily available.
People prefer taste and texture above all else when eating foods.
Thus, more people eat meat rather than beans because they actually like eating meat more. What people like or dislike doesn't come valid to defend abusive careless actions.

and money(!)
Time is money. Time is limited, so people wouldn't care about paying a few more dollars as long as they can go home in time to watch their favorite show. Time? What's more healthy, cheap and quick than 'wolfing' an apple?

as possible searching for things. We've also discussed how humans have free-will to change their attitude towards what we think ain't right.
People won't change as easily as you think. You and I both know that. We also know we are responsible for our own actions, and we can stand up for what we believe in and make a difference, or at least chose not to take part in something we believe is unethical..

Though some fish species may have moderated fat - around 15~35 (40%+ for the canned in oil) - it has high-high-high LDL.
I never stated or implied that. Most species of fish are really healthy, and most vegetarians live relatively longer lives when they eat certain species of fish. Vegetarians don't eat fish, pescetarians do (mere technicality, yup ;)), nor does anyone live longer because of eating fish. Every species of fish (though some may have moderate fat) have high LDL. If you refer to the good stuff there is in fish, all of that you can also get from veggies.
Click to expand...

I really hope you don't still think that it's okay to contribute with abuse only because we're fisiologically and legally capable.

edit>> whooooa! I just found out the halvarine I eat has 42% vit b12 daily intake per tablespoon *0*
Gonna start adding a spoon of it to my salad every night.
 
Last edited:
@Juicy Fruit - You should really look closely at the human anatomy before pulling information out of your ass. The thing is is that we can eat whatever we want, whether or not our bodies are designed for it. Dogs and bears, which fit into your description of carnivorous animals, also eat plants.

Thing is though, we're the opposite way around - we started way back when as a species that was mainly to eat plants, but we ended up surviving as a species because we can eat both meat and plants. We DO have teeth for tearing apart meat, those are in the front of our mouth. We DO have the eyes for searching for prey, with them in the front for better depth perception. We have no claws because we use are hands to make tools which serve a similar purpose. We also do not have the ability to digest the fibers that make up plants, which is why they "pass through our system".

Both are important to a balanced diet - and there is scientific evidence that flesh is far more nutritious than anything plants provide, which is why vegans must eat many kinds of fruits and vegetables to receive the same nutrients as someone with an omnivorous diet. It is because of this "easier to access" nutrition why we survived, and this is why we have developed the traits we did. It's not bad to eat meat, because we are made to eat both meat and plants.

The debate should be how the animals about to become our food are being treated, not whether or not it is ethical to eat them.

Also, Jupotatoes. You can't win an argument by being an arrogant fool.
 
I completely agree with you. You can't win anything by being an arrogant fool. Like being unpolite or offending people completely without a reason, not bother trying to know what other people have to say.
Other from that, if the debate is now at wether or not should animals be eaten, you should try getting to know why is that some people find it unethical, instead of just go around acting childish towards someone who was being perfectly polite to you and everyone. This kind of behaviour only gets you an infraction, unfortunately.
 
Charon the Ferryman said:
@Juicy Fruit - You should really look closely at the human anatomy before pulling information out of your ass. The thing is is that we can eat whatever we want, whether or not our bodies are designed for it. Dogs and bears, which fit into your description of carnivorous animals, also eat plants.

Thing is though, we're the opposite way around - we started way back when as a species that was mainly to eat plants, but we ended up surviving as a species because we can eat both meat and plants. We DO have teeth for tearing apart meat, those are in the front of our mouth. We DO have the eyes for searching for prey, with them in the front for better depth perception. We have no claws because we use are hands to make tools which serve a similar purpose. We also do not have the ability to digest the fibers that make up plants, which is why they "pass through our system".

Both are important to a balanced diet - and there is scientific evidence that flesh is far more nutritious than anything plants provide, which is why vegans must eat many kinds of fruits and vegetables to receive the same nutrients as someone with an omnivorous diet. It is because of this "easier to access" nutrition why we survived, and this is why we have developed the traits we did. It's not bad to eat meat, because we are made to eat both meat and plants.

The debate should be how the animals about to become our food are being treated, not whether or not it is ethical to eat them.

Also, Jupotatoes. You can't win an argument by being an arrogant fool.
Click to expand...

Well then, you go ahead and murder an animal and eat it raw. We'll see how long it takes you to get sick. Your digestive system isn't capable of eating anything we want like you say. We can eat it, but that doesn't mean we won't get sick or die.

Also, no need to be jackass. 'Kay, jackass?
 
Juicy Fruit said:
Well then, you go ahead and murder an animal and eat it raw. We'll see how long it takes you to get sick. Your digestive system isn't capable of eating anything we want like you say. We can eat it, but that doesn't mean we won't get sick or die.

Also, no need to be jackass. 'Kay, jackass?
Click to expand...

We have enzymes that digest rotting meat well.
We also evolved to cook, in order to enforce the nutrients we get from meat and to reduce the bacteria in it.
 
Charon the Ferryman said:
@Juicy Fruit - You should really look closely at the human anatomy before pulling information out of your ass. The thing is is that we can eat whatever we want, whether or not our bodies are designed for it. Dogs and bears, which fit into your description of carnivorous animals, also eat plants.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a dog eat plants before... I've seen them chew on grass and cough back up to get better when they are feeling sick. But never a tomato, potato etc.

Also Jupotatoes, all you have been doing is saying the exact same made up crap that peta and other such groups want you to believe. Vegans are destroying the planet by eating twice as much plants as a person who eats meat does. I'm not trying to piss you off or anything but no doubt you'll just report my post like all the other ones and say it's "flaming and spam" but their not, they are opinions... opinions they make you cry because you can't defeat simple logic. Animals do have their rights, they aren't forced to do anything, they just live in the circle of life. Cows need to be milked otherwise they get edgy and mad. Chickens give us eggs to eat and other animals to eat. Because they're not kept in small cage at all.

And if you still can't accept the facts of the circle of life, go watch "The Lion King" it will blow your mind away and will help you understand life better that it's normal to eat meat like every other living creature.
 
@Shalon Gotta say, you're really being offensive. However, I just want to state one more time how much I despise PETA, they make all vegans look like blood bucket throwing, 'hey change the name of the band to animal shelter boys', 'we're naked so you won't eat meat' kinda people, it's sad, really. If you think it's okay to eat meat just because we once needed to, I suggest you read the thread further, there's some info on why that doesn't justify abuse, and several other harm. Also, not only eating meat takes 7x what could be eaten of cereals, a vegan diet doesn't eat twice what an omnivore does. Vegans don't eat only salad, most of my calories come from carbs such as whole wheat pasta and bread. It's actually not much easier for a vegan to control calorie intake, when I used to diet only based on calorie intake it was still pretty laborous (nowadays I know better, and do my cuttings watching only carbs and glycemic load index).
About cows and milking:
jupotatoes said:
Justin, here's the thing about milk:
-These cows are only born because people wanted them to.
Also, they're fed hormones to makem produce about 4 times more milk. So it's not really reasonable to state "well, I'm drinking it to save their lives!".
-Also, still on that matter, to produce milk, cows have to be constantly pregnant. If the weren't artificially inseminated, or didn't have their babies taken from them (to be milking cows if female or veal if male), there still wouldn't be a gotta-milk'em problem.
That argument would be solid if cows produced milk all the time, and didn't have their babies to drink it off. So we'd maybe be doing some good going out on the while and milking them - though we'd still be pretty much having an effect in nature's balance.
Click to expand...
Hens actually do live in poor conditions most of the time, because egg production wouldn't be worth monetarily otherwise. They also tend to eat their own eggs if they lack proper nutrition. Look for a book called Animal Liberation that explains in detail how are hens treated in 'free-range' and factory farms.
 
Alright kids, stop throwing Jackasses at each other. It makes a Panda sad and kill itself :(

Also jupotatoes. Rainsworth has a point. You are repeating over and over again what not only PETA says but many other groups thankfully not as messed up as PETA. It's all just a load of bullcrap. And yeah, I think you might actually learn something if you watch the Lion King. ~Teh Spheeere Thingy of laaaaiif!~ is what makes the world spin.

So what if meat is 7x less that something in cereal? Humans have in the US, and deserve in other parts of the world, the right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

We live our lifes however the hell we want to, we can eat whatever the hell we want to 'cause we gots liberty, and if it makes you happy you can eat meat whenever the hell you want to. And those rights are Unalienable as hell.
 
If you don't believe what I say, back yourself up, say why is that so, why is my data innacurate, instead of just offensively - one might say stupidly, but not me, I'm not by far the one throwing names -advertising wichever disney kids movie you'd please to justify both human as nonhuman death and abuse as "idz da sarcull olyv".
Animals are wasting cereals, but why is that bad, right? Because we have a famine problem in our world, and not land enough to waste it however we might please. I'm not selfish enough to eat a steak when me and 6 other starving people could be eating something as good, more nutritionous and healthy than meat. Nonhuman animals and starving people also deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.
Liberty should be used as an instrument of kindness and will to change things for good.
 
And I think this thread has reached the end of it's life. I'm pretty sure I mentioned earlier that I'd close this if the condition of the content didn't improve, and I'm utterly disappointed in how stupid everyone is being with their opinions. Yes, opinions. Not many people in this thread seem to be able to tell the difference between a fact and an opinion and how to respond to either properly.

You can have a discussion, sure, but when it comes to the point where two opposing sides are pushing their beliefs on one another while completely dismissing the other side as being completely wrong no matter what's said, then a discussion becomes heated and absolutely good for nothing but bickering.

That said, I'm closing this. I'm pretty sure anything "noteworthy" has been explored through the constant repetition of the same points aimed at anything said against not eating animals. >>;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top