Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Animal rights

Rate this topic


Ragnar

Recommended Posts

I asked you for information (though I stated it in the negative).  I made a positive statement that you said was untrue.  What information do you have that makes you say it is untrue?

Hello oldsalt--

I'm not sure if you're still interested in this information at all, since it's only tangentially related to the discussion at hand, but I may be able to provide it.

Some amino acids are made by the human body (nonessential) and others must be gotten from diet--they are called essential amino acids. What your doctor/nutritionist may have meant was that it can be very difficult to get a complete amino acid profile (one that contains all the essential amino acids) from a vegetarian diet (or even moreso with a vegan one.)

This is because animal proteins (meat, dairy, eggs) provide a complete profile. Soy and quinoa apparently do too. However, other vegetarian sources lack some of those essential amino acids. For instance, nuts and seeds tend to lack lysine, and legumes lack methionine.

Since not many people are willing to spend their time scientifically composing a diet that is rich in complementary proteins (the proteins Old Geezer mentioned briefly that provide the full array of amino acid building blocks when added together throughout the day), it can be dangerous to let them go willy nilly about making up vegetarian diets of their own.

Perhaps that is what your doctor was getting at and not making a very precise statement about it? You'd have to ask him/her to find out.

So, sorry if that was a bit off-topic at this point. It doesn't really pertain to the ethics of eating animals, as you mentioned, but I thought you might still like to know ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Apprentice. My doctor prescribed the diet he did because I have specific problems digesting a lot of vegetables and grains, neither am I able to process complex carbohydrates very well. Therefore, I must be on a mainly protein diet (Atkins was made for me!) I've tried explaining this to my vegetarian friends, but it makes no impression.

I really didn't want to get into my rather esoteric problems (they bore the hell out of me, so what must it be for others!), except to point out the dangers involved in making broad generalizations about anyone's diet. Obviously, I didn't do a very good job of it! I appreciate the info. It was the clarification I was asking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in response to Ragnar's first posting in this section.

I do not believe you understand what happens when an animal is brought in for slaughter. First they are shipped to the slaughter house. There, they are kept in stalls or an open field and fed normally and watered normally. There is absolutely no cruelty involved before or after they are brought to the house. Then they are lined up in a cattle shute and they are tagged in the back of the head by an electrical shock that shuts down their brain. It is similar to a taser. Their body falls limp, without feeling, and they are hung by their ankles from the ceiling while they are bled out. There is no pain whatsoever involved in slaughtering an animal which will exclude your reason of "pain and suffering".

Did you download and read the paper I had linked ? And aren't you excluding the conditions in which they are raised. And isn't all this a bit tangential to the issue anyway ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranger,

I think the marym’s post was in association with this issue. You said in your opening post that “the point is about 'unnecessarily' inflicting pain and suffering on these creatures”. She pointed out that they are not having pain inflicted upon them. And don’t even start to argue that how they are treated while they are raised is cruel. Think about this, if you owned cows and they were the primary source of you income how would you treat them?

Next item, the article you posted is ridiculous. Whatever the article claims to be its motive its entire premise is reliant on the idea that animals should be treated with respect. The writer states that he is against treating animals “inhumanly for no good reason”, obviously he thinks that human pleasure is not a good enough reason. He is putting the animal’s wellbeing over his own wants (maybe not, maybe he doesn’t like the taste of meat, but he is suggesting that we should). Also note he says he is against treating animals “inhumanly for no good reason” (inhumane = lacking pity, kindness, or mercy – Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). I have no problem being inhumane to animals for any reason. I am against being cruel to animals for no good reason (cruel = causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain – Merriam Webster Online Dictionary). The farms can do whatever it takes to the animals in order to make cheap, tasty, preferably not dangerous meat and, being the selfish egotists that I am, I could care less. As long as everything they do is for selfish reasons it is completely fine, morally. Show me a selfish reason why I should refrain from eating the carcass of a beast and I’ll show a selfless one.

Also, regarding the articles ridiculousness, its arguments for its statement that “most farm animals raised in the United States are forced to endure intense pain and suffering in “factory farms”” is; that they “are made to live in inhospitable unnatural conditions”, are “separated from their mothers at an early age”, veal is “chained at the neck” (so is my dog) along with living in crate, the surfaces they are made to stand on (concrete), (you know, the stuff we stand on all day) cause “chronic foot and leg injuries” (this happens to me too, I think all sue the city for paving the sidewalk), the food contains antibiotics and the meat of “dead diseased animals” and then calls it “unfit for human consumption”(if its not good enough for me, it not good enough for my cows, excuse me while I laugh hysterically), (ok, continuing on) the removal of the beaks of chickens with a “scalding hot blade…leaving blisters” and the removal of toes (note: they do both of these actions to prevent them from pecking and clawing each other to death, which the article also complains about), and also that “it is unlikely that being shocked into unconsciousness is itself a painless procedure” (lets try it on this guy and ask him if he felt anything). Now that I am done roaring with laughter, excuse my language because we are talking about fucking animals here. I hope we all see the serious errors in ideology and judgment on the part of this article. If anyone does take this article seriously I’ll say this, you need to look at the facts and then rationally approach them rather then allow the writer to carry you on a magical journey though the evils of farming animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that people can enjoy the taste of meat for two reasons;

Either they can Crave the nutrients. (I would imagine that Cravings stem from "Biological causes" such as someone's need for vitamin B, or sugar, or a smoker's yearning for an increase in dopamine)

Or they can can crave the "taste". It seems that tastes vary from person to person because their sensory experiences and the judgement they pass on them varies. While most people are not always fully conscious of what value judgements they are making when they like food, it seems that a Randian approach would suggest that this always occurs. (the judgements may not always be rational, but they exist)

Some examples include

a hunter who sub consciously savors his Deer more because of the sport and effort and struggle involved in obtaining it.

a lover who sub consciously enjoys a meal more because she was taken out to a restuarant by someone she loves

a tourist who detests the taste of dog meat because she associates dog with companion

a soldier who enjoys an MRE after being rescued.

****

if tastes are driven by judgements, tastes are subject to change. Example: I once went to a friend's house, and noticed she had a cool looking lamp shade. Upon closer observation, however, I noticed it was one of those collars they give to Neutered dogs. Now there is nothing Immoral about her putting the "lamp shade" there. But I no longer found it in good taste. (I think probably because Neuter collars are meant to be neuter collars, not lamp shades)

When I talk to "part time vegetarians" (i.e. those that abstain from non certified organic meat, or meat they don't know the source of but don't object to eating meat in general)they often make the argument that they simply didn't like meat after seeing how the animals were raised in "factory farms"(in other words, becoming aware of the conditons the animals were raised in changed their tastes because some element of the conditions was not in line with their idea of the excellent)

most often when vegetarians have tried to "convert" me, they have asked me to merely become knowledgeable about how they are raised, and have asked me to be sure that cognitive dissonance does not hijack my thought process.

****

any comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most often when vegetarians have tried to "convert" me, they have asked me to merely become knowledgeable about how they are raised, and have asked me to be sure that cognitive dissonance does not hijack my thought process.

Actually, could you unpack that statement a little? What did they mean when they said that?

Incidentally, my preferences for meat run somewhat similarly to theirs. I like to know where my meat comes from and that the conditions were good. For instance, while I'll eat regular chicken or eggs from a crammed farm where the animals are living on top of one another in their own filth, I prefer free range and am often willing to pay for it. This is not a particular concern for the animals, but for the quality of the products and how that could potentially affect my health and taste buds. In other words, yes--knowing how the food was raised changes my perception, but most likely not for the same reasons as your friends.

I'd love to see a rise in free range and/or organic farming from consumer demand on the free market if someone could figure out how to do it more economically. But that's definitely not the same thing as wishing industry would bow to the sort of governmentally-enforced standards that organizations like PETA would like to push.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am replying to ragnar's last posting

Did you download and read the paper I had linked ? And aren't you excluding the conditions in which they are raised. And isn't all this a bit tangential to the issue anyway ?

First of all, I didn't download the paper you posted because I didn't need to. I should have clarified this in my first posting but I know all about this first hand. I was raised on a farm, I showed animals in 4-H since I was 6 and I am currently a student with the major of Pre-veterinary Medicine. I not only know people who live and own farms who raise cattle for food, but I have seen them first hand while the farmer is working. I will not argue with the article that the calves are kept in pens when they are small but that is for good reason. They are kept there while they are vulnerable to diseases, either standing on grass or straw unlike your article said, so that they do not contract diseases or viruses from other calves or cattle. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be eating infectious meat. When they are free of vulnerability, they are placed in paddocks or fields with the other cattle until they are ready for slaughter. The concrete that is used for paddocks is not flat but ridged and so there is traction for their hooves and so that they do not get shin splints. These are the conditions in which the animal is raised and it varies with different species. The farmer does what is needed to keep the animal healthy but they do not allow them to live in luxury due to the financial issues they would face. The farmer is trying to make a profit, not to allow an animal to live a life that a human would. That is the underlying principle here, they are treating them in an uncruel way but an inhumane way, as joerj11 stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is about what marym and foerf11 wrote:

I asked you if this whole thing is not tangential to the issue anyway The reason I asked was this: I was not primarily concerned with the factual data on whether animals suffer or not, but with the philosophical, speicifically moral, question of whether we can inflict pain or suffering on another sentient being or not. This has been the main question I've asked here. Is life of any value or not. And some of the responses I've received on this have been helpful.

From the paper I'd linked, I didn't use the cruelty argument as in cruelty of farming animals, but cruelty as in the very act of eating meat, when healthy vegetarian alternatives are available. And just to make it clear, I no longer find the argument viable.

Best premises

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, my enjoyment for the taste of meat is more important than a life of a mindless animal.

p2. Animals suffer while being butchered for meat.
marym showed you that these animals are not even in any pain, at least not any more than they would in the wild. You asked what was wrong with the thought process given, this shows how part of it was wrong. Facts are helpful in this case.

I was under the impression that the reason that point was view as correct was because of the article. I showed you why that article is crap.

I didn't use the cruelty argument as in cruelty of farming animals, but cruelty as in the very act of eating meat
aren't you excluding the conditions in which they are raised
hmmmm

I no longer find the argument viable
Good, Did marym's factual post have anything to do with that?

So, what it comes down to is whether you value the smaller things in your life (the taste and cost of food) more than a cow’s life. What about sport hunting? Is the pleasure of sport hunting of a lesser value to you than a cow? Should we not play baseball because the ball is made of animal skin or stop wearing shoes, I'm sure they can make shoes out of something less efficient than leather.

I would never let a cow's (I keep saying cow, any animal will do here) life stand in the way of my enjoyment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biologically, humans are meant to seek nourishment from both animals and plants.

Humans are omnivorous. They need meat, poultry, and fish in their pursuit of happy, healthful lives.

The vegetarians, who have recruited scientists to convince us that we can healthfully satisfy our nutritive needs without meat, are preaching sacrificing our need for meat for the sake of animals we need to slaughter for food.

I am in strong disagreement with vegetarians.

For example, cows do not eat anything that has fat in it, yet they get fat.

Even fat free foods can be metabolized as fat if the caloric intake exceeds the caloric output. This is scientific fact.

Moreover, I've yet to meet a strict vegetarian who has a healthy appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

What about eggs and milk? The animal is not killed in this case but vegetarians seem to have problems with this too. What about fish?

Also, who said a vegetarian diet is cheaper than a balanced diet? To get all you need in a vegetable diet runs more because the vegetables don't stay with you as long and you need to eat more of it to stay full. Not to mention all the extra toilet paper you need from crapping so much. You also have to go to specialty places to get everything you need as most grocery stores don't carry it. Now you are sacrificing time, money, etc. to follow a diet which may or may not be better for your health. Especially if you are allergic to soy, grains, nuts etc which my son is and he can't get his protein without meat.

In reality, meat is on the menu and has been for humans for millions of years. Anyone want to grill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biologically, humans are meant to seek nourishment from both animals and plants.

Humans are omnivorous.  They need meat, poultry, and fish in their pursuit of happy, healthful lives.

To play devil's advocate, and hopefully to add to the quality of this thread;

What biological fact of the human species requires them to consume meat in order to be healthy?

I see that AutoJC is banned, but maybe somebody who agrees with his position can answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biologically, humans are meant to seek nourishment from both animals and plants.

This strikes me as a pretty blatent instance of the naturalistic fallacy.

Theres no real difference between saying 'humans are biologically meant to seek nourishment from meat' when trying to justify killing animals, and saying 'humans are biologically meant to eat, spread their genes as much as possible, and die' in order to defend promiscuity. Both arguments ignore a) volition, B) culture, and c) the fact that nature has no point of view or intentions hence humans arent 'meant' to do anything.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are hunters. We are built to hunt biologically. We have eaten meat for a very long time as a species. The body digests it. I think from these facts its clear that meat is on the menu. If you don't want to eat it, don't, I really don't care.

Now rocks are not on the menu. They don't digest. I don't think you could survive long eating rocks. While we can gather rocks up and make fences out of them they don't taste very good ( to me ). So I would gather from this that we are not built to eat rocks. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What biological fact of the human species requires them to consume meat in order to be healthy?
The need for pleasure. That's why we have umami receptors on the tongue. De gustibus, as they say. (Myself, I'm bivegetarian -- I eat both plants and animals.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erik, I'm not so sure that these arguments work.

Humans are hunters.

You seem to be merely repeating your conclusion.

We are built to hunt biologically.

Why do you think that? Humans have no claws. Our teeth are the dullest of all the primates (even more dull than gorilla's teeth, and they are- with the rare exception of insects- exclusive herbivores). Omnivores have a stomach acidity pH of 1. Humans have a stomach acidity pH of 4-5. This is why humans must cook meat in order to make it palatable. This is not necessarily for biological omnivores. Our bipedality doesn't give us the speed needed to hunt other animals.

Clearly, man has enough intelligence to build tools to hunt and domesticate animals for food. But this doesn't prove that humans are biologically intended to consume meat, when doing so is not a requirement of their health.

We have eaten meat for a very long time as a species.

The fact that humans have done something for a long time proves that it is the proper way of living? It's ironic to find such a statement on an Objectivist forum.

The body digests it.

The body can digest many things and live to do it again. How does that prove that humans are biologically intended to consume these things?

Now rocks are not on the menu. They don't digest. I don't think you could survive long eating rocks. While we can gather rocks up and make fences out of them they don't taste very good ( to me ). So I would gather from this that we are not built to eat rocks.

That's a poor analogy. It certainly proves that humans should not eat rocks, but it doesn't explain what biological facts require humans to eat meat in order to be healthy- which was my original question.

If you don't believe that humans must eat meat in order to be healthy, then my question was not directed to you. I did not dispute that humans are capable of digesting it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The need for pleasure. That's why we have umami receptors on the tongue. De gustibus, as they say. (Myself, I'm bivegetarian -- I eat both plants and animals.)

The unami receptors detect glutamates, which are not exclusive to meat products. In fact, broccoli has more glutamates than meat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unami receptors detect glutamates, which are not exclusive to meat products. In fact, broccoli has more glutamates than meat.
That's okay by me, though there's something else that broccoli has that tastes foul to some people (I'll go for broccoli and steak if it's on offer). Remember, my argument wasn't based on a nutritional requirement. If I were looking for the most efficient way of keeping the body alive, I'd probably argue for blenderized algae and tofu. Yuck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to some health problems and more specifically some medicine I have to take, it has changed the way things taste to me. Also, as a part of my health problem I have to watch the level of protein in my diet. I actually have to make sure that I don't have too much protein in my diet as opposed to most popular "diets" which do the opposite. So I've become a de facto vegetarian. But I still eat milk and eggs regularly. The other white and dark meats I don't eat that often any more.

So I actually do not enjoy the taste of meat nearly as much any more. Same goes for carbonated beverages. I'd rather drink water from an ashtray than Pepsi. The same way most people enjoy brussel sprouts (something I've always loved), I now look at most steaks. It's a weird place to be. Trust me.

I've actually learned to find plenty of other sources of protein in my diet that before I would have never thought about and to be honest, I don't miss it that much. It was something I learned to not think about. It was an adaption or "learned skill" sort of thing.

Still, I do enjoy a loaded buffalo burger every now and then. But I have to be in the right mood for it and watch what else I've eaten. So I'd say that humans are omnivores by evolution. Trying to get enough protein in your diet without killing anything is a bear (joke intended).

And actually to reply to David, all kidding aside, there is some total crap (and that is being very charitable) call Juvo that is literally "blenderized algae and tofu" with some other stuff thrown in that you can literally live off of. Healthy as all get out, convenient to carry and easy to make. Personally, I'd rather shoot myself.

Anyway, with all the knocking of vegans please do note that everyone seems to be missing one very important fact: nothing in the world tastes better than a pure free range buffalo. Vegetarians taste good. Especially with garlic and butter sauce. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, as a part of my health problem I have to watch the level of protein in my diet. I actually have to make sure that I don't have too much protein in my diet as opposed to most popular "diets" which do the opposite. [...] 

 

I've actually learned to find plenty of other sources of protein in my diet that before I would have never thought about [...]

The differences between individuals are fascinating. For example, I suffered from an escalating series of inflammation problems for 43 years, beginning at age 18: dermatitis (mainly eczema), episodes of iritis that nearly blinded me, tendonitis, bursitis, arthritis that almost put me into a wheelchair, and colitis.

By changing my diet (a term that means only "regular way of eating"), I eliminated 99% of the problems. The remaining 1% disappeared when I began taking a pharmaceutical for a lingering skin problem, uncovered when the eczema went away.

The diet I was eating before was very high protein. The diet I am on now consists only of fruit, vegetables, and "roots" (such as potatoes) and gourds (such as pumpkin). By avoiding all acid-producing foods (as designated on a Potential Renal Acid-Load list), I dumped my medical problems.

The main source of acid-producing substances is protein, but it is not the only source. (I also avoid vinegar, alcohol, and coffee, for example.)

To my surprise, I have found that getting protein that is adequate in both quantity and variety is very easy even if I eat only fruit, vegetables, and roots and gourds. I eat no animal products (except 1 gram of fish oil daily) and no plant products that are seeds (which are very acid-producing), such as nuts, beans, peas, and grains.

I average about 50 grams of protein per day, which is more than enough for an otherwise healthy person. Pregnant women and anyone recovering from major surgery would need a little more, according to the secondary sources I have learned to trust. (I am not a physician or researcher, so I must rely on my judgment of others' testimony and on my experience in implementing their suggestions.)

I must take a supplement for the one vitamin missing, B12, which is found only in animal products. I take the fish oil as a precaution, for the possible absence of sufficient omega-3s.

Having said all that, I would not follow this diet if it weren't for the specific tendency-to-inflammation condition that I have. However, the only change I would make, without the condition, would be to add a tiny bit of beef liver, clams, or a few other animal products to my diet each day, just to get the B12 everyone needs. The amounts could be as little as a couple of tablespoons of beef liver daily, according to the figures I have seen.

Do I miss animal products? Not at all. The transition to an all-plant diet, however, was rough. But having medical problems is a major incentive for change.

Now at age 61, I have no heart disease, no cancer, no diabetes, no kidney problems. My eyesight actually got slightly better in the last few years. I am the healthiest I have every been in my life. I walk one hour a day and bicycle for two, depending on the weather. I see age mates crippled by supposed "old-age" symptoms that I suspect are diet related, if my experience is a guide.

Thirty one years ago I had heart disease (high cholesterol count, high blood pressure, chest pains when exercising). By switching to a very low fat, Pritikin style diet I got rid of the heart disease, and it has never returned. What I didn't know was that, at least for me, too much fat is what kills, but too much protein is what causes misery as life progresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burgess,

I'm glad you are healthier. It does seem diets are as varied as individuals.

Imagine trying to raise a growing baby that cannot stomach non-animal proteins but can eat meat. Hopefully he will grow out of it but who knows.

Cole, I think you trying too hard to defend your position. I could go down point by point and say stuff like humans have canines, they do have claws but keep them trimmed etc. but it seems like your mind is made up.

Since humans DO eat meat, you have to convince there is a good reason not to. So far I am not convinced.

Edited by erik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The differences between individuals are fascinating. For example, I suffered from an escalating series of inflammation problems for 43 years, beginning at age 18: dermatitis (mainly eczema), episodes of iritis that nearly blinded me, tendonitis, bursitis, arthritis that almost put me into a wheelchair, and colitis.

The remaining 1% disappeared when I began taking a pharmaceutical for a lingering skin problem, uncovered when the eczema went away.
Actually, that isn't the first time I've heard of people with colitis and related conditions that have eczema or psoriasis. I too used to have frequent flare ups of eczema. After I changed to the veggie diet it really did help. I to gave up vinegar (which is what I also topped anything potato with (damn my British heritage) along with coffee, beer, and soda (as I mentioned a drug for another problem caused my brain to completely change my perception of the perception of the flavors). After the doctor got my main issue under control, he was surprised the eczema disappeared or at least a really manageable level. So, we basically left well enough alone. We assumed we were doing something right diet wise so we didn't risk screwing with anything that was working.
 

The diet I was eating before was very high protein. The diet I am on now consists only of fruit, vegetables, and "roots" (such as potatoes) and gourds (such as pumpkin). By avoiding all acid-producing foods (as designated on a Potential Renal Acid-Load list), I dumped my medical problems. 

 

The main source of acid-producing substances is protein, but it is not the only source. (I also avoid vinegar, alcohol, and coffee, for example.) 

 

To my surprise, I have found that getting protein that is adequate in both quantity and  variety is very easy even if I eat only fruit, vegetables, and roots and gourds. I eat no animal products (except 1 gram of fish oil daily) and no plant products that are seeds (which are very acid-producing), such as nuts, beans, peas, and grains. 

I average about 50 grams of protein per day, which is more than enough for an otherwise healthy person. Pregnant women and anyone recovering from major surgery would need a little more, according to the secondary sources I have learned to trust. (I am not a physician or researcher, so I must rely on my judgment of others' testimony and on my experience in implementing their suggestions.) 

This is where I was running into the problem. I was powerlifting and playing rugby so I was trying originally on a ketogenic diet eat lost of meat and animal proteins. The diet didn't cause the main problem which happens to be seizures but after all was said and done did contribute to the acid levels in my blood. But, even when I went veggie, I still had to intake upwards of 250-300 grams of protein a day so you an see where eating a couple chicken breasts here and there along with a few cans of tuna for a snack would make sense.
I must take a supplement for the one vitamin missing, B12, which is found only in animal products. I take the fish oil as a precaution, for the possible absence of sufficient omega-3s.

Having said all that, I would not follow this diet if it weren't for the specific tendency-to-inflammation condition that I have. However, the only change I would make, without the condition, would be to add a tiny bit of beef liver, clams, or a few other animal products to my diet each day, just to get the B12 everyone needs. The amounts could be as little as a couple of tablespoons of beef liver daily, according to the figures I have seen.

Do I miss animal products? Not at all. The transition to an all-plant diet, however, was rough. But having medical problems is a major incentive for change.

I agree here with you. We both are in similar boats. Our bodies for one reason or the other require us to adapt, so being rational beings we are able to.
Now at age 61, I have no heart disease, no cancer, no diabetes, no kidney problems. My eyesight actually got slightly better in the last few years. I am the healthiest I have every been in my life. I walk one hour a day and bicycle for two, depending on the weather. I see age mates crippled by supposed "old-age" symptoms that I suspect are diet related, if my experience is a guide. 

Thirty one years ago I had heart disease (high cholesterol count, high blood pressure, chest pains when exercising). By switching to a very low fat, Pritikin style diet I got rid of the heart disease, and it has never returned. What I didn't know was that, at least for me, too much fat is what kills, but too much protein is what causes misery as life progresses.

As much as I hate agreeing with AutoJC on his point, you can be a vegan on a low protein diet and still get fat. It's a matter of balance. Again, it's a matter of finding a rational balance that is optimal for the individual. And I will agree, I hate the word diet, regular way of eating is so better of a description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's okay by me, though there's something else that broccoli has that tastes foul to some people (I'll go for broccoli and steak if it's on offer). Remember, my argument wasn't based on a nutritional requirement. If I were looking for the most efficient way of keeping the body alive, I'd probably argue for blenderized algae and tofu. Yuck.

Don't get me wrong- I love eating meat.

I was just challanging AutoJC's claim that humans must eat meat in order to live healthy lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an aside:

A few years ago, some people in my town used spray paint and stencils to paint the words "Vegan Power" on a few walls and benches downtown. Some time after that had happened, I was walking down the street and saw that someone had taken a fat Sharpie and altered the stencil to read "Eat Vegans For Power." I loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...