[RickSp]

Quote by: strongheartswin Oh, you mean those little nubs we humans have? That does deserve a LOL. Gorillas have canines, too. You also were born with a long intestinal tract which all herbivores are born with. You also are not able to process your own vitamin C which carnivores WITH CANINES can all do.

Which I guess is why we are not strictly carnivores any more than we need to be strictly vegetarian.

Quote by: strongheartswin We most definetly need a mix of nutrients, minerals, and vitamins. That is a given, like most mammals -- and we can achieve that in this modern world without much difficulty. To spend an extra five minutes at the supermarket when first becoming a vegetarian, until you get it down in choosing your foods, is a small price to pay for unselfish people when it is the difference between the economic demand that pulls animals through the miserable disassembly line -- often still concious due to inexperienced workers or malfunctioning knockers, etc...

Yes, as you may have inferred by reading my post, but I have zero desire to eat a vegetarain diet and I do not share your anquish regarding the death of cows, lambs, chickens or fish.

Quote by: strongheartswin No pretending. Btw, why the oblique insults?

Why the obvious lack of any sense of humor?

Quote by: strongheartswin Have you read the position paper by the worlds largest association of professional nutritionists on the topic and the benefits that a vegetarian diet has? Don`t take my word for it. Here is an excerpt, and you can read the original piece with over a hundred references from researchers, scientists, professors, and other experts from well respected orgs and publications like the USDA, American Cancer Society, AMA, etc...

Yes and why should as I care? Again, I have no interest in a strictly vegetarian diet.

Quote by: strongheartswin Human nature in its natural form is pretty scary. That is why we have laws to protect us from the anarchy that if it were left unrestrained would surely develope. Even as canibalism is still alive in some corners of the world, anthropologists will tell you it was more widespread in the past. So, if we seem to have naturally consumed our fellow man, then why should we not continue doing so? After all, according to your reason we shouldn`t try to repress our "nature."

I obviously have a far greater regard and respect for our species and our "nature" than you do.

Quote by: strongheartswin That is right, we are animals! Our distinguishing trait however is that we have developed a sense of morals, empathy, and a modern society that makes it permissable that we need not cause misery to other animals. The "what is natural" argument is moot. It sure isn`t natural for us to do many things, but we do them anyway. What is "possible" is what guides humans as we seek to better our lives and societies. Walking home and having to take a crap, I don`t reason, "well, it was natural for my ancestors to crap in the great wide open, so I am going to let one go here on my neighbor`s lawn." No. I would reason it is possible for me to make it another 20 yards to my house and the bathroom -- in essence thwarting my natural urge to relieve myself just anywhere I wish for my own pleasure. You are resting your argument on selfishness based on natural whims.

An interesting if somewhat unfocused rant. Your religious regard for other species while showing contempt for your own is strange. We are reasoning animals, yet I see nothing particularly rational in your argument.

Quote by: strongheartswin Why should you be opposed to unnecessary cruelty to animals if there are no moral considerations to be given to them? I have no moral considerations to a stone or tin can, therefore I don`t see it cruel if a child walks down a street kicking one or the other. If it were a kitten though, I would be morally opposed to a child doing that? Explain to us how "unecessary cruelty" is divorced from "moral considerations".

I clearly do not consider eating animals for food to constitute unnecessary cruelty. As I asked before, is a wolf cruel in eating other animals? Is a cow morally superior to the wolf? Why shouldn't omnivores be omnivores? Superimposing a wholly artificial ethical structure over the natural order makes no particular sense.

Quote by: strongheartswin I will, and I don`t expect you to change overnight or in the course of this discussion. In fact, you are just a sounding board for those who are undecided and looking in on the debate. The undecided are my target, surely not you. But, I do hope you continue being a sounding board. In debate, though, I, too, am a sounding board for your point of view. I care about moving the audience. Most vegetarians who choose this diet for moral reasons engage in debate to move those on the spectrum, because we know that as the trend grows stronger, our choices and power will increase and cause your meat at restaurants and supermarkets to become more expensive (i.e. through more security for processing plants and farms, less demand, smaller economies of scale). Flesh eaters on the other hand consistantly leave the debate little by little over time. I would be surprised if you stay in this debate long with me.

LOL. Were you not so humourless and pompously pious you might have a clue why flesh eaters leave the debate. It is boring. Your self righteousness adds nothing to the discussion and your repetiton of the same points gets tedious quickly. Your suggestion that this sort of bloviation will drive up the cost of meat, however, is actually quite funny.

Your view is fundamentally religious, based of emotional rather than rational considerations. If you won't eat meat, fine by me, but you will make very converts to your position by boring people to death.