Vegetarianism

[davedes]

Quote by: Matt “We are the first to come up with a life-expectancy figure showing a very important increase in life expectancy for those who follow a vegetarian diet for a long period of time.

After so many studies on the matter, being the first to come up with that result is not a good thing.

The source I posted, which was in the form of an academic paper rather than a one-sided and biased article, notes the confounding factors, explaining:
"Some of the variation in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians."

It goes into more detail in Table 8, of the Results section.

An earlier metastudy found similar results. I will quote from Wikipedia for convenience, but I encourage you to view the source to confirm the claims.

A 1999 metastudy compared six major studies from western countries. The study found that the mortality ratio was the lowest in fish eaters (0.82) followed by vegetarians (0.84) and occasional meat eaters (0.84), and was then followed by regular meat eaters (1.0) and vegan (1.0). When the study made its best estimate of mortality ratio with confounding factors considered, the mortality ratio for vegetarians was found to be (0.94).

The study: Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies -- Key et al. 70 (3): 516S -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

You can see that, even before confounding factors were considered, fish eaters and occasional meat eaters were no worse off than vegetarians for longevity.

... who ate the most meat were also at the greatest risk for heart disease.

Really? It's no surprise to me.

Those who eat the most meat, particularly non-lean meat, will be at most risk for heart disease. Eating meat does not mean eating it in excess; many non-vegetarians ("animal flesh eaters") are also conscious of their diets. Although I am an omnivore, it would be incorrect to generalize me as somebody who would "eat the most meat" in a given group.

Such a link between high meat consumption and heart disease is irrelevant to my argument, as I am specifically advocating low-meat diets and their benefits. The same can be said about the difference between low alcohol consumption and high alcohol consumption: one leads to increased longevity, and the other leads to liver failure. However, it would be wrong to assume that all of those who drink do so excessively.

Now to focus on your first point, that makes no sense. Since any animals meats take a three step program (which uses more energy and causes more environmental damage), while crops only take a two step system, therefore causing less envrionmental damage. Unless of course you are comparing a vegetarian who eats chips, ice cream, and cheese to a partial meat eater who consumes everything organically and buys only products made 'close to home'.

My first argument was that low meat diets have shown to cause less of a foodprint than a pure vegetarian diet, as supported by my source. I'm not sure why you are introducing the concept of energy usage and environmental damage. Foodprint does not mean footprint.

You quote:
"if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads."
It's evident that the majority of the West needs to cut back on our meat consumption, but it is not necessary to completely abstain from meat in order to benefit the environment or one's health (some studies suggest quite the opposite, in the case of health).

The rest of the wall of quotes you've provided all seem to be pro-vegetarian babble that is irrelevant to my argument.

Doesn't matter if it is widely held, ad populum.

What do you mean "doesn't matter"? You scoff this point off as if it is useless to the topic of vegetarianism, when in reality it is crucial. I am not suggesting that we should eat meat because so many do it, but rather that we should consider this point because of its importance to so many people.

Lets be honest here, I could take away bread from my diet. I would not like doing so, but it is not unrealistic. Taking a part of your diet away is not unrealistic is you can find other food sources.

Taking away all meat products and all animal-related products is very, very unrealistic for myself and many others. Not just in the sense of personal values, such as taste, but also for practical reasons, such as current residences, availability and quality of vegetarian substitutes, etc.

Again, what is realistic for you may not be realistic for the rest of us. Completely removing meat from my diet is about as realistic as completely removing vegetables from your diet.

[Matt]

Quote by: davedes After so many studies on the matter, being the first to come up with that result is not a good thing. The source I posted, which was in the form of an academic paper rather than a one-sided and biased article, notes the confounding factors, explaining: "Some of the variation in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians."

One sided and biased article? Maybe it is just showing the facts.

It goes into more detail in Table 8, of the Results section. An earlier metastudy found similar results. I will quote from Wikipedia for convenience, but I encourage you to view the source to confirm the claims. The study: Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies -- Key et al. 70 (3): 516S -- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition You can see that, even before confounding factors were considered, fish eaters and occasional meat eaters were no worse off than vegetarians for longevity.

In 1999, there was not the same available vegetarian foods, neither were vegetarians as educated about the diet. It didn't become more of a mainstream thought until the early 2000's. An almost 10 year old study doesn't hold that much weight with the constant changes in society.

Hmm, this is what your study has to say in conclusion:

In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established.

I'm pretty happy with that result.

Really? It's no surprise to me. Those who eat the most meat, particularly non-lean meat, will be at most risk for heart disease. Eating meat does not mean eating it in excess; many non-vegetarians ("animal flesh eaters") are also conscious of their diets. Although I am an omnivore, it would be incorrect to generalize me as somebody who would "eat the most meat" in a given group. Such a link between high meat consumption and heart disease is irrelevant to my argument, as I am specifically advocating low-meat diets and their benefits. The same can be said about the difference between low alcohol consumption and high alcohol consumption: one leads to increased longevity, and the other leads to liver failure. However, it would be wrong to assume that all of those who drink do so excessively.

Flesh eaters is the correct term. I never did generalize you. I am clearly making a point. No, actually, your argument was about luxuries and sacrifice, you just changed it. It is relevant to our debate, since it shows a negative effect of eating animal flesh. You have just been able to prove that in an almost 10 year old study that the death rate is almost the same between vegetarians and low flesh eaters. I have been able to show that in some diseases the death rate is higher for meat eaters. You have not been able to do that in the opposite scenario.

My first argument was that low meat diets have shown to cause less of a foodprint than a pure vegetarian diet, as supported by my source. I'm not sure why you are introducing the concept of energy usage and environmental damage. Foodprint does not mean footprint.

Ok, then clearly define the word 'foodprint'.

You quote: "if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than a half-million cars off U.S. roads." It's evident that the majority of the West needs to cut back on our meat consumption, but it is not necessary to completely abstain from meat in order to benefit the environment or one's health (some studies suggest quite the opposite, in the case of health).

Actually, it is of great benefit to abstain from flesh. It causes abuse in most circumstances and a well thought out diet which includes flesh will hurt the environment more then a well thought out vegetarian diet. A diet which includes flesh uses more energy, causes more pollutants, uses more land, etc. All bad things for the environment.

The rest of the wall of quotes you've provided all seem to be pro-vegetarian babble that is irrelevant to my argument.

I see you can't respond to them. They may be pro-vegetarian, but as I have said they show the facts and source them. It is relevant to your argument, because people even consuming a little bit of flesh will be causing those problems and using so much un-needed energy. If you can't respond to them, then your environmental part of your debate fails since you can't counter mine.

What do you mean "doesn't matter"? You scoff this point off as if it is useless to the topic of vegetarianism, when in reality it is crucial. I am not suggesting that we should eat meat because so many do it, but rather that we should consider this point because of its importance to so many people.

And it is important for many people to have drugs, but they are illegal. Somethings which cause extensive harm no matter what have to be re-looked upon. I am not asking for a ban on the industry, I simply want people to recognize vegetarianism is the superior diet and it should be encouraged.

Taking away all meat products and all animal-related products is very, very unrealistic for myself and many others. Not just in the sense of personal values, such as taste, but also for practical reasons, such as current residences, availability and quality of vegetarian substitutes, etc. Again, what is realistic for you may not be realistic for the rest of us. Completely removing meat from my diet is about as realistic as completely removing vegetables from your diet.

No, it actually is not a correct comparison. Without vegetables, I would most likely have severe health effects, and if you didn't have flesh, you'd most likely be fine in health terms.

[Matt]

I'm back...anyone miss me?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy If the market for it was bigger, supply and demand dictates that there would be more shops selling it.

Then prove the market is bigger. You saying it is bigger does not constitute as proof.

We're looking for free-range animals here, rather than animals which have been kept in sheds all their lives. Spend a day outside the farm. If you don't see any animals in the fields, you know they're not free-range.

No, free-range does not mean they aren't suffering (suffering is what we were talking about, by the way). Free-range animals could suffer as well (e.g. being branded, getting abused by the owners of the farm and/or employees, being transported in bad conditions, etc.).

It's simply one interested man's opinion. Without evidence to back it up, his opinion on meat holds no more weight than your own. And people are unwilling to give it up because, like I said, it's enjoyable to them.

Actually, it does. First off, he is a MD, secondly he is the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. I think his opinion holds more weight then mine or yours, considering he is an expert in the field.

Meaning of addiction:

"The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something."


"An abnormally strong craving."

"A habitual or compulsive involvement in an activity, such as gambling."

(I included a few definitions so I don't get called 'cherry picker' )

Sure seems like it could be classified as an addiction for many people.

And it's only a superior diet if a life without certain pleasures is superior to a life with them at the expense of the environment. We know this isn't the case for some pleasures, and there's no reason that it should be any different for the pleasure of eating meat.

And I could say a vegetarian diet is equally as pleasurable. But, that is subjective, as is your statement saying a meat eating diet is pleasurable. If you make an animal flesh eater cut out flesh, it most likely will bring less pleasure to their lives, and same goes if you force a vegetarian to eat flesh, it will bring less pleasure to their lives. Therefore, they both cancel each other out and we have to look at the other factors which determine what is the superior diet.

Free range chicken farms and animals raised for personal consumption both exist. These don't contain any of the elements which we know to be harmful. Hence, we assume that they are not.

Prove it. You can't assume that something doesn't happen because you don't know. That is not how people debate. They have to prove something doesn't happen. So prove to me suffering does not occur on those types of animal rearing.

Nope; read what I wrote. I'm saying they're experts in human health; not in deciding what's best for a person. Again, it's merely your opinion that being healthy is better. I agree that it is in most cases, but not always at the expense of pleasure. I know drink and drugs can be bad for my health, but I do them anyway because I find them enjoyable.

Yes, and they have decided it is best for a person to be healthy, in physical health terms. Therefore it is superior in physical health terms when compared to a meat diet.

Sure, but I'm sure you would state that in physical health terms not drinking a lot is better then drinking a lot?

I was under the impression we were still talking about harming oneself through eating unhealthy food.

You must have gotten mixed up. Look where I responded to you. We were talking about 'if killing does not cause harm to others, then should it be allowed' if I remember correctly.

That's like saying that, because blacks statistically commit more crimes than whites, whites are a superior race. Vegetarianism is only superior to meat-eating if the vegetarian diet is superior to all meat-eating diets; not just most. If your claim is that vegetarianism is superior to all forms of meat eating, you need to prove it for all forms of meat eating. If your claim is that vegetarians tend to eat more ethically overall, then fine. However, that's not an argument for vegetarianism, so it's not relevant to this thread.

Wrong. If vegetarianism on average was superior across all boards, it would be named superior overall (I'm looking for overall superiority, not just one point). So me and you should name all the major concerns and points about the two diets, and see which one comes out on top. Does that work with you? Also, your comparison doesn't work well. Humans are much more complex then what they eat

People use electricity for pleasure. People drink alcohol and eat unhealthy food for pleasure. Hence, neither health nor environment are necessarily more important to them than pleasure.

That doesn't mean they view pleasure worth more then the environment or their health. They may eat a burger with fries, but then they may go for a 20km run. Just because someone drinks a bottle of beer does not mean they don't view the environment overall more important then their pleasure.

Right, so you just went off on a complete tangent in the middle of an argument. That makes much more sense.

Nope, it makes a lot of sense. After all, the person asked if I had proof animals suffer (in general terms, otherwise he/she would have stated it differently). So I provided proof. Simple.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Then prove the market is bigger. You saying it is bigger does not constitute as proof.

I never said the market for ethical meat was bigger than the vegetarian market; I said it was smaller.

No, free-range does not mean they aren't suffering (suffering is what we were talking about, by the way). Free-range animals could suffer as well (e.g. being branded, getting abused by the owners of the farm and/or employees, being transported in bad conditions, etc.).

It's not difficult to check an animal for signs of abuse.

Quote by: Matt Actually, it does. First off, he is a MD, secondly he is the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Without an actual study, his opinion is worthless, regardless of his degree. Having a degree doesn't mean that your unfounded opinions are any more credible. That's called an appeal to authority.

And the fact that he's president of the PCRM discredits his opinion further. The president of a vegan organisation has motives to lie.

Quote by: Matt Meaning of addiction: "The condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with or or involved in something." "An abnormally strong craving." "A habitual or compulsive involvement in an activity, such as gambling." (I included a few definitions so I don't get called 'cherry picker' )

But conveniently missed out the medical definition, which requires a physical component to the craving.

Quote by: Matt And I could say a vegetarian diet is equally as pleasurable. But, that is subjective, as is your statement saying a meat eating diet is pleasurable. If you make an animal flesh eater cut out flesh, it most likely will bring less pleasure to their lives, and same goes if you force a vegetarian to eat flesh, it will bring less pleasure to their lives.

So vegetarianism is superior for some people and meat eating is superior for others. No one diet is superior for everyone.

Quote by: Matt Prove it. You can't assume that something doesn't happen because you don't know. That is not how people debate. They have to prove something doesn't happen. So prove to me suffering does not occur on those types of animal rearing.

We have no reason to believe that any of the issues of suffering you've raised apply to these farms. Just as we have no reason to believe that the plants you eat suffer. An assumption that the animals in question suffer is as credible as an assumption that plants suffer.

Quote by: Matt Yes, and they have decided it is best for a person to be healthy, in physical health terms. Therefore it is superior in physical health terms when compared to a meat diet.

But you're claiming that it's superior in an absolute sense; not simply a pysical health sense.

Quote by: Matt You must have gotten mixed up. Look where I responded to you. We were talking about 'if killing does not cause harm to others, then should it be allowed' if I remember correctly.

You don't, but it hardly matters.

Quote by: Matt Wrong. If vegetarianism on average was superior across all boards, it would be named superior overall

No it wouldn't, otherwise whites being less likely to commit crimes than black people makes whites the superior race overall. The truth is that race has nothing to do with crime, just as whether you eat meat has nothing to do with whether animals suffer. It’s a case of how you eat meat; not whether you eat it. Hence, vegetarianism is not necessarily superior, unless it is superior to all forms of meat eating.

Quote by: Matt That doesn't mean they view pleasure worth more then the environment or their health. They may eat a burger with fries, but then they may go for a 20km run. Just because someone drinks a bottle of beer does not mean they don't view the environment overall more important then their pleasure.

Of course it does. If the environment was more important than their pleasure, they wouldn't indulge in frivolous activities which harm the environment.

Quote by: Matt Nope, it makes a lot of sense. After all, the person asked if I had proof animals suffer (in general terms, otherwise he/she would have stated it differently).

Not in general terms, otherwise s/he wouldn't have quoted an argument about free-range chickens.

[davedes]

Quote by: Matt In 1999, there was not the same available vegetarian foods, neither were vegetarians as educated about the diet.

Likewise, our understanding of meats has evolved over the past several years, and as a result, meat-based diets have also improved.

In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established.

And, after accounting for confounding factors, vegetarians had a higher all-cause mortality ratio (0.94) than fish eaters (0.82) and occasional meat eaters (0.84).

No, actually, your argument was about luxuries and sacrifice, you just changed it.

I changed the content of my post in response to your claim that "No animal flesh eater has shown any ways in which an omnivore diet is superior, not in health, the environment, etc."

Ok, then clearly define the word 'foodprint'.

Here's one definition:
"Coined by Cornell University researchers led by Chris Peters, "foodprint" is defined as the amount of land needed to supply one person’s nutritional needs for a year."[1]

It causes abuse in most circumstances

Abuse of what?

and a well thought out diet which includes flesh will hurt the environment more then a well thought out vegetarian diet.

I was not arguing the opposite.

A diet which includes flesh uses more energy, causes more pollutants, uses more land, etc. All bad things for the environment.

We've already discussed the "foodprint." The study showed that a low-meat diet is more land-efficient than a vegetarian diet.

I see you can't respond to them.

Why would I? They are irrelevant to my argument, and I agree with most of them.

It is relevant to your argument, because people even consuming a little bit of flesh will be causing those problems and using so much un-needed energy.

My claims are not relevant to high-meat intake, fossil fuels or energy use. Again, your wall of quotes is irrelevant to my claims.

And it is important for many people to have drugs, but they are illegal.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "drug." Caffeine is a drug. So is alcohol. What are you attempting to show with this analogy?

I am not asking for a ban on the industry, I simply want people to recognize vegetarianism is the superior diet and it should be encouraged.

And I am arguing that a low-meat diet has shown to be superior in respect to longevity and land efficiency. And for many of us, it is also more realistic than complete abstinence from meat.

This is not to say that any one diet is absolutely superior over another -- it's simply superior in those particular aspects.

[Diogenes]

Everything is good in moderation.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I never said the market for ethical meat was bigger than the vegetarian market; I said it was smaller.

Oh stop the semantics. You know what I meant. Prove that it is smaller then please.

It's not difficult to check an animal for signs of abuse.

Prove it (abuse is mental and physical).

Without an actual study, his opinion is worthless, regardless of his degree. Having a degree doesn't mean that your unfounded opinions are any more credible. That's called an appeal to authority. And the fact that he's president of the PCRM discredits his opinion further. The president of a vegan organisation has motives to lie.

Yes, but it does mean his opinions are worth more then mine or yours, unlike what you said. You can't discredit someone because they are involved in something which may swing their opinion. You have to prove they are wrong. That is just an excuse you are making so you don't have to counter this point.

But conveniently missed out the medical definition, which requires a physical component to the craving.

Sure, but a good part of the meaning of addiction is what I have shown. And therefore, you could call some people addicted to flesh by those definitions. Simple.

So vegetarianism is superior for some people and meat eating is superior for others. No one diet is superior for everyone.

That doesn't make sense. A diet's superiority does not come simply from pleasure, if it did, then your statement would be correct, but it doesn't. So we must leave the subjective (aka pleasure) points out of this debate to see which is superior, since I have shown both can be equally as pleasurable. They cancel each other out on that term, so we must look for others.

We have no reason to believe that any of the issues of suffering you've raised apply to these farms. Just as we have no reason to believe that the plants you eat suffer. An assumption that the animals in question suffer is as credible as an assumption that plants suffer.

We have a reason to believe they could happen because they have happened in the past on farms (not factory farms):

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Horse neglect - Richland, SC (US)

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Farm animal neglect - Victor, MT (US)

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Cow impaled on tractor fork - Ohakune, WE (NZ)

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Pig with bound legs dies of exhaustion - Santa Fe, NM (US)

Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Sheep slated for slaughter neglected - Worth, IL (US)

Ok, there are some cases where animals on farms (non factory)/meant to be eaten were abused. So we do have a reason to believe it may happen, so therefore, you have to prove it doesn't.

But you're claiming that it's superior in an absolute sense; not simply a pysical health sense.

We are talking about health here, not all topics. Stop trying to bring everything into it when we are discussing the other bits in other parts.

No it wouldn't, otherwise whites being less likely to commit crimes than black people makes whites the superior race overall. The truth is that race has nothing to do with crime, just as whether you eat meat has nothing to do with whether animals suffer. It’s a case of how you eat meat; not whether you eat it. Hence, vegetarianism is not necessarily superior, unless it is superior to all forms of meat eating.

But we are talking about a number of topics which would make vegetarianism superior, not just one topic (who commits more crimes). That is narrow minded. It can still be named superior overall if it is overall better. But, you are now the one who has to prove in some cases animals do not suffer abuse. You haven’t answered me question…

Of course it does. If the environment was more important than their pleasure, they wouldn't indulge in frivolous activities which harm the environment.

Wrong, that is naive to think that. People want to have enjoyment, and on occasions they may put that above the environment. But that doesn't mean the environment isn't a bigger issue to them in the whole scheme of things.

Not in general terms, otherwise s/he wouldn't have quoted an argument about free-range chickens.

My question to you wasn't purely about free range chickens, I asked you if you had proof animals didn't suffer on some farms if I remember correctly. He/she asked if I had proof they did suffer, so I showed him/her proof.

Quote by: davedes Likewise, our understanding of meats has evolved over the past several years, and as a result, meat-based diets have also improved.

Prove that they have. Also, you then must agree with me the study is out dated and not worth anything if you agree that both the diets have changed.

And, after accounting for confounding factors, vegetarians had a higher all-cause mortality ratio (0.94) than fish eaters (0.82) and occasional meat eaters (0.84).

The study is out dated, and it doesn't represent what people are eating now. Find me a newer study please, or your point is worthless.

Here's one definition: "Coined by Cornell University researchers led by Chris Peters, "foodprint" is defined as the amount of land needed to supply one person’s nutritional needs for a year."[1]

“Thus, although vegetarian diets in New York state may require less land per person, they use more high-valued land. "It appears that while meat increases land-use requirements, diets including modest amounts of meat can feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian diets," said Peters.”

Wow, that is so amazing I am overwhelmed by that convincing evidence. Not. They have to resort to the fact that A) Normal meat diets are much more harmful then vegetarian ones B) That a vegetarian diet uses less land C) That a diet including modest amounts of meat can feed more people then a HIGHER fat vegetarian diet D) That it only counts in New York. Plus, did they use factory farmed flesh? Also, they admit that a meat diet uses more land, just not prime land. Please show me where they said (other then topic name), where a low meat diet uses less land. All they indicate is it could feed more people (minutely) to my knowledge. It says that a vegetarian diet uses less land, but it isn’t as efficient because there is more pasture land IN New York. That could easily be changed.

So to sum it up, a vegetarian diet uses a smaller foodprint in New York. Your statement is wrong.

Abuse of what?

Animals.

We've already discussed the "foodprint." The study showed that a low-meat diet is more land-efficient than a vegetarian diet.

Actually, using your definition of foodprint, a low meat diet in your study uses a larger foodprint. It uses more land. So my statement stands, since I simply said in a diet which includes flesh uses more land, not that it uses less efficient land.

Why would I? They are irrelevant to my argument, and I agree with most of them.

My claims are not relevant to high-meat intake, fossil fuels or energy use. Again, your wall of quotes is irrelevant to my claims.

Not all those focus on that. If you eat moderate amounts of meat, you are still causing abuse, un-needed environmental damage, and pollution, just to lesser degrees. It is all still relevant, therefore, please respond to it.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "drug." Caffeine is a drug. So is alcohol. What are you attempting to show with this analogy?

I'm attempting to show things have been made illegal (which are harmful) even if they are widely wanted. So, flesh could be made illegal as well. But I'm actually not trying to make it illegal, I simply want people to recognise a diet which does not include flesh is superior.

And I am arguing that a low-meat diet has shown to be superior in respect to longevity and land efficiency. And for many of us, it is also more realistic than complete abstinence from meat.

Your "longevity" claim has been debunked, and a low meat diet uses more land. Plus, the study which you showed has so many gaps in it which prove little (I have explained them above). I have shown that a low flesh diet uses more land, causes more abuse, causes more pollution, causes more environmental damage, etc. then a vegetarian diet.

This is not to say that any one diet is absolutely superior over another -- it's simply superior in those particular aspects.

But if it can be shown to be superior in many areas, where as the other diet is superior in almost none, then it would be named the superior diet overall.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Oh stop the semantics. You know what I meant. Prove that it is smaller then please.

Supply and demand. If it was a bigger market, there would be more of it available.

Quote by: Matt Prove it (abuse is mental and physical).

How does one mentally abuse a chicken?

Quote by: Matt Yes, but it does mean his opinions are worth more then mine or yours,

No it doesn't. Again, that's an appeal to authority. Without evidence, his opinion is as worthless as anyone else's.

Quote by: Matt unlike what you said. You can't discredit someone because they are involved in something which may swing their opinion. You have to prove they are wrong.

Actually, you have to prove that he's right since it was you that made the claim.

Quote by: Matt Sure, but a good part of the meaning of addiction is what I have shown. And therefore, you could call some people addicted to flesh by those definitions. Simple.

In the same way that some people say they’re addicted to chocolate. A real addiction requires a physical component.

Quote by: Matt That doesn't make sense. A diet's superiority does not come simply from pleasure, if it did, then your statement would be correct, but it doesn't. So we must leave the subjective (aka pleasure) points out of this debate to see which is superior, since I have shown both can be equally as pleasurable.

Not to all people. Meat eating is more pleasurable for some and vegetarianism is more pleasurable for others.

And just because it's subjective doesn't mean pleasure shouldn't factor into the decision of which diet happens to be superior. That fact that it's subjective doesn't make it irrelevant; it simply means that different diets are superior for different people.

Quote by: Matt We have a reason to believe they could happen because they have happened in the past on farms (not factory farms): Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Horse neglect - Richland, SC (US) Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Farm animal neglect - Victor, MT (US) Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Cow impaled on tractor fork - Ohakune, WE (NZ) Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Pig with bound legs dies of exhaustion - Santa Fe, NM (US) Pet-Abuse.Com - Animal Abuse Case Details: Sheep slated for slaughter neglected - Worth, IL (US) Ok, there are some cases where animals on farms (non factory)/meant to be eaten were abused. So we do have a reason to believe it may happen, so therefore, you have to prove it doesn't.

The fact that it happens on some farms isn't reason to believe that it happens on all of them.

Quote by: Matt We are talking about health here, not all topics. Stop trying to bring everything into it when we are discussing the other bits in other parts.

So you're saying vegetarianism is only superior in a medical sense? I didn’t see that qualification in your original argument.

Quote by: Matt But we are talking about a number of topics which would make vegetarianism superior, not just one topic (who commits more crimes). That is narrow minded. It can still be named superior overall if it is overall better.

No it can't. If you make the claim that vegetarianism is the best diet, it needs to be better than all forms of meat eating. If there are any diets which it isn't better than, it ceases, by definition, to be the best.

Quote by: Matt But, you are now the one who has to prove in some cases animals do not suffer abuse.

No I don’t. You made the claim that vegetarianism is superior. You prove it.

Quote by: Matt Wrong, that is naive to think that. People want to have enjoyment, and on occasions they may put that above the environment. But that doesn't mean the environment isn't a bigger issue to them in the whole scheme of things.

Of course it does. If the environment was unconditionally more important than pleasure, they wouldn’t damage it for pleasure. Simple as that.

Quote by: Matt My question to you wasn't purely about free range chickens, I asked you if you had proof animals didn't suffer on some farms if I remember correctly.

You don't.

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Supply and demand. If it was a bigger market, there would be more of it available.

Prove there isn't more available then. Other then your opinion, which counts for nothing when you are claiming stats.

How does one mentally abuse a chicken?

By chasing it (therefore making it go through mental and physical trauma). Or many other things I could mention if you wish. But let’s get back on topic, prove your statement:

It's not difficult to check an animal for signs of abuse.

I expect a source which proves your claim. Otherwise, it is worthless, and you haven't proven that it is not difficult to see signs of abuse. You made the claim, your prove it. If I get ignored again, this is going to become bolded enlarged letters.

No it doesn't. Again, that's an appeal to authority. Without evidence, his opinion is as worthless as anyone else's. Actually, you have to prove that he's right since it was you that made the claim.

So you are saying following a Doctor's advice is appeal to authority? Actually, I don't have to. I showed a source which backs up my premise, I do not need to prove it. You are the one which has to prove it wrong or accept my point.

In the same way that some people say they’re addicted to chocolate. A real addiction requires a physical component.

Define 'real'. Plus, define 'physical component', just so we are clear on this matter and it doesn't turn into a word war.

Not to all people. Meat eating is more pleasurable for some and vegetarianism is more pleasurable for others. And just because it's subjective doesn't mean pleasure shouldn't factor into the decision of which diet happens to be superior. That fact that it's subjective doesn't make it irrelevant; it simply means that different diets are superior for different people.

Sure, so they average out as equal diets in the subjective realm. You can't prove a subjective, it is impossible. That's why it "shouldn't factor in". Both can be just as pleasurable, so even if it wasn't subjective, it wouldn't count and it would end in a tie for that point. It is no use debating this, we'll get nowhere. It is simply logical to knock taste out since it is subjective.

The fact that it happens on some farms isn't reason to believe that it happens on all of them.

But we now do have a reason to believe it may happen on non-factory farms, as I have shown. So now all the proving is up to you. Prove that animals are not suffering in certain farms.

So you're saying vegetarianism is only superior in a medical sense? I didn’t see that qualification in your original argument.

You misread my statement. I said in this section (not in the entire post), we are talking about health, so I said stop trying to bring everything into this particular part of the debate since you want to distract focus from this certain part of the debate, for whatever reason.

No it can't. If you make the claim that vegetarianism is the best diet, it needs to be better than all forms of meat eating. If there are any diets which it isn't better than, it ceases, by definition, to be the best.

I said best overall, stop muddling my words. Best overall means it ranks higher in more categories then does a diet with meat, therefore, best overall. Plus please prove that it has to be better then all forms of meat eating to be ranked 'better'.

No I don’t. You made the claim that vegetarianism is superior. You prove it.

You have to prove animals do not suffer abuse on a certain type of meat raising farm, since I have shown it is possible they may.

Of course it does. If the environment was unconditionally more important than pleasure, they wouldn’t damage it for pleasure. Simple as that.

Never said "unconditionally". I said that if a person drives a car, it doesn't mean that pleasure is more important to them in the whole scheme of things, just in that one particular incident.

You don't.

Yes, I did.

Here the question he/she quoted that I wrote to you:

Answer this, do you have any proof in reality that animals are not suffering?

And here is what he/she asked me:

Do you have any proof they are?

So I asked you if you have any proof in reality animals are not suffering, then he asked if I did have proof they are. Simple as pie. This is looking mighty funny...

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Prove there isn't more available then.

You've already said yourself that the majority of meat comes from unethical sources. Also, there's the fact that you see a lot of vegetarian shops, restaurants, societies etc., whereas the same can't be said of ethically produced meat. Pretty much every menu has a vegetarian option, yet I see very few with an "ethically produced meat" option.

Quote by: Matt By chasing it.

Right, I'm sure a lot of farmers spend their time chasing chickens.

Quote by: Matt Or many other things I could mention if you wish. But let’s get back on topic, prove your statement: Quote: It's not difficult to check an animal for signs of abuse. I expect a source which proves your claim.

You need a source to tell you that physical injury is detectable? The only specific example you mentioned was branding which, by its very nature, must be visible.

Quote by: Matt So you are saying following a Doctor's advice is appeal to authority?

In a debate, yes. You need a study to prove something; not just someone happening to agree with you.

Quote by: Matt Define 'real'. Plus, define 'physical component', just so we are clear on this matter and it doesn't turn into a word war.

Real meaning the medical definition and physical meaning physical dependence.

Quote by: Matt Sure, so they average out as equal diets in the subjective realm.

Nope. If it’s subjective, you can’t, by definition, average it out into a general rule. You take it to mean that vegetarianism is superior for some and meat eating is superior for others. You’re correct that it can’t be used to objectively prove either diet to be superior. However, that doesn’t mean we should disregard it; it simply means that neither diet is necessarily superior in all cases.

Quote by: Matt You misread my statement. I said in this section (not in the entire post), we are talking about health,

So it's superior health-wise. I was attempting to link it to your statement that vegetarianism is superior overall because I assumed this point had something to do with your original statement.

Quote by: Matt I said best overall, stop muddling my words. Best overall means it ranks higher in more categories then does a diet with meat, therefore, best overall. Plus please prove that it has to be better then all forms of meat eating to be ranked 'better'.

If it’s not better than all forms, it means there is something better than it. If there’s something better than it, it’s not the best.

Quote by: Matt But we now do have a reason to believe it may happen on non-factory farms, as I have shown. So now all the proving is up to you. Prove that animals are not suffering in certain farms.

Quote by: Matt You have to prove animals do not suffer abuse on a certain type of meat raising farm, since I have shown it is possible they may.

We don't assume that something happens just because it is possible.

Quote by: Matt Never said "unconditionally". I said that if a person drives a car, it doesn't mean that pleasure is more important to them in the whole scheme of things, just in that one particular incident.

Which is what I was saying: people decide that their pleasure is more important than the environment every day. Of course this only applies to specific instances, for example eating meat.

Quote by: Matt Yes, I did. Here the question he/she quoted that I wrote to you: Quote: Answer this, do you have any proof in reality that animals are not suffering? And here is what he/she asked me: Quote: Do you have any proof they are? So I asked you if you have any proof in reality animals are not suffering, then he asked if I did have proof they are. Simple as pie. This is looking mighty funny...

Yes, and here's the point to which that discussion originally related:

"There's no comparison between keeping free-range chickens and the factory farms you mention. There's no more reason to believe they suffer than there is to believe the plants you eat suffer. As such, there's no reason to believe that vegetarianism is a superior diet."

[ironeagle]

Vegitarianism is not a good diet, most have to take special suppliments or watch their consumption of certain foods extremely closly to avoid, malnutrition and tooth decay. It is very dangerous for children, I have seen them turn pale and watched ones teeth rot due to malnutrition from not getting a balanced diet. I am having a problem with meat because I am pregnant and for some reason can't sit and eat a steak or pork chop or whatever. I have lost alot of weight due to this and have to take a weight gainer to keep myself from unhealthy malnurishment. It can be a very serious problem and people should take it more seriously than they do. It's good some can watch their diet carefuly and prevent these things from happening but many don't and they and their children suffer. I also don't like it when vegitarians try to convince people eating animal sis cruel. it'snot cruel it's normal it's what were are supposed to do, it is natures way.

[Kuldeep]

Quote by: ironeagle Vegitarianism is not a good diet, most have to take special suppliments or watch their consumption of certain foods extremely closly to avoid, malnutrition and tooth decay. It is very dangerous for children, I have seen them turn pale and watched ones teeth rot due to malnutrition from not getting a balanced diet.

No, Non-Veg is bad diet since one can never always have only non-veg. Veg. foods are to be supplemented in some way or the other for chage or addition of taste. While; veg. foods can be had without any supplement of non-veg foods. There are plenty of veg. foods which are balaned foods, scientifically proven.

I also don't like it when vegitarians try to convince people eating animal sis cruel. it'snot cruel it's normal it's what were are supposed to do, it is natures way.

Definitely killing of animal is cruel as killing of human but eating meat may not be though since dead meat won't feel pain!

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You've already said yourself that the majority of meat comes from unethical sources. Also, there's the fact that you see a lot of vegetarian shops, restaurants, societies etc., whereas the same can't be said of ethically produced meat. Pretty much every menu has a vegetarian option, yet I see very few with an "ethically produced meat" option.

Yes, and the majority of people aren't vegetarian It works both ways. You clearly can not find any proof, and your claim is worthless. Your experience or opinions do not constitue as proof.

Right, I'm sure a lot of farmers spend their time chasing chickens.

You need a source to tell you that physical injury is detectable? The only specific example you mentioned was branding which, by its very nature, must be visible.

They may do that, or they may simply let the chickens out of tiny cages when they know visitors are coming. You can never be sure.

Yes, many physical injuries heal or just bruise (which is not easily visible on animals with fur or feathers). Here are some more examples: kicking, hitting, putting in tiny cages/pens, etc.

In a debate, yes. You need a study to prove something; not just someone happening to agree with you.

You do? Then why are you (above) trying to prove something with your opinion, not a study? Pot calling the kettle black I dare shall say I'll remember that line.

Real meaning the medical definition and physical meaning physical dependence.

Huh? I showed you the dictionary's meaning, and it included what I was going after. It does not have to include all parts to be labelled as an addiction.

Nope. If it’s subjective, you can’t, by definition, average it out into a general rule. You take it to mean that vegetarianism is superior for some and meat eating is superior for others. You’re correct that it can’t be used to objectively prove either diet to be superior. However, that doesn’t mean we should disregard it; it simply means that neither diet is necessarily superior in all cases.

Sure, so they are equal in that sense then. That doesn't impact my debate (remember, superior overall?), and I never knew I could even get that point. Guess it is a bonus. Now it is time to move onto the other topics.

So it's superior health-wise. I was attempting to link it to your statement that vegetarianism is superior overall because I assumed this point had something to do with your original statement.

Well, I guess you made the wrong link. Ok, second down, two to go. So far the score is 1.5 points for me and .5 for you (ties are .5, wins are 1). Just to explain, we tied on the pleasure thing, and I proved a vegetarian diet is healthier. And since you showed me no other points you wish to debate, there is just animal abuse and the environment left.

If it’s not better than all forms, it means there is something better than it. If there’s something better than it, it’s not the best.

So then, it is best overall if we want to get picky

We don't assume that something happens just because it is possible.

Like you said, if there is a reason to believe abuse may be happening on farms, then you have to prove yourself. If you can't supply proof, then you lose this point as well and I go to 2.5, which means the debate is over.

Which is what I was saying: people decide that their pleasure is more important than the environment every day. Of course this only applies to specific instances, for example eating meat.

Yes, and somethings are needed in this world, and they must do that. Sure the environment might be one of their biggest concerns, but that doesn't mean they wont drive a car or drink a soda. Anyhow, this is quite a round in circles debate which is pretty meaningless. Now, going on to the real point, can you disprove my studies/facts that a meat diet is better for the environment then a vegetarian one? If you can't, my facts stand, I go up to 2.5, and the debate is over unless you think of another qualifying factor for superiority.

Yes, and here's the point to which that discussion originally related: "There's no comparison between keeping free-range chickens and the factory farms you mention. There's no more reason to believe they suffer than there is to believe the plants you eat suffer. As such, there's no reason to believe that vegetarianism is a superior diet."

[/QUOTE]

Doesn't matter, I already told you I stated my question towards you in general terms for all animals. Unless you can prove I asked you in a different sense, stop wasting my time here. Proving intent when you have no proof is difficult.

Quote by: ironeagle Vegitarianism is not a good diet, most have to take special suppliments or watch their consumption of certain foods extremely closly to avoid, malnutrition and tooth decay.

You couldn't resist, could you? I thought you wouldn't come back after last time...I guess I was wrong.

Prove that most vegetarians need supplements. Prove that vegetarianism is not a good diet. But, of course you wont, I already provided proof which disagrees with your opinion, and states a vegetarian diet is healthy. Why do you keep repeating yourself? It only looks funny.

It is very dangerous for children, I have seen them turn pale and watched ones teeth rot due to malnutrition from not getting a balanced diet.

Prove that it is very dangerous for kids. I am 14, and I have had no health effects. You also are not a medical doctor (I believe), and don't know if the things you explained were caused by vegetarianism or not

It can be a very serious problem and people should take it more seriously than they do. It's good some can watch their diet carefuly and prevent these things from happening but many don't and they and their children suffer.

Prove that many don't.

I also don't like it when vegitarians try to convince people eating animal sis cruel. it'snot cruel it's normal it's what were are supposed to do, it is natures way.

It is 'norma'l if people went out with a club and killed a deer It is not normal for severe abuse be happening is huge farms. Supporting the meat industry causes great amounts of suffering. Some people aren't able to feel sympathy...poor people....

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Matt Yes, and the majority of people aren't vegetarian It works both ways. You clearly can not find any proof, and your claim is worthless. Your experience or opinions do not constitue as proof.

Are you denying that there are more vegetarian shops and restaurants than there are sources for ethical meat?

Quote by: Matt They may do that, or they may simply let the chickens out of tiny cages when they know visitors are coming.

No need to tell them you're coming.

Quote by: Matt Yes, many physical injuries heal or just bruise (which is not easily visible on animals with fur or feathers). Here are some more examples: kicking, hitting, putting in tiny cages/pens, etc.

Why would a farmer want to kick or hit his animals?

Quote by: Matt You do? Then why are you (above) trying to prove something with your opinion, not a study?

I'm not trying to prove a medical point. You can't prove a medical point through logic; you need scientific study.

Quote by: Matt Huh? I showed you the dictionary's meaning, and it included what I was going after. It does not have to include all parts to be labelled as an addiction.

This is merely semantics. An addiction to meat is as real as an addiction to chocolate.

Quote by: Matt Sure, so they are equal in that sense then.

No, they are superior to some and inferior to others. That doesn't average out to equal because you can't make a general rule out of something subjective. It means that meat is superior for some and vegetarianism is superior for others. You can’t simplify it further than that.

Quote by: Matt Well, I guess you made the wrong link. Ok, second down, two to go. So far the score is 1.5 points for me and .5 for you (ties are .5, wins are 1). Just to explain, we tied on the pleasure thing, and I proved a vegetarian diet is healthier.

But you haven't proved that health is an important issue or that it's worth the same number of points as the other issues.

Quote by: Matt So then, it is best overall if we want to get picky

No. Best means better than everything else; not most other things. If someone who enjoys the taste of meat finds a source for his food that doesn’t involve animal suffering, his meat-eating diet is better than vegetarianism. It it’s better than vegetarianism, vegetarianism is not the best.

Quote by: Matt Like you said, if there is a reason to believe abuse may be happening on farms, then you have to prove yourself.

No I don't. You haven't provided reason to believe that abuse happens on every farm and, since you made the original claim, you are the one who needs to be providing proof.

Quote by: Matt Yes, and somethings are needed in this world, and they must do that. Sure the environment might be one of their biggest concerns, but that doesn't mean they wont drive a car or drink a soda.

Or eat a steak.

Quote by: Matt Anyhow, this is quite a round in circles debate which is pretty meaningless. Now, going on to the real point, can you disprove my studies/facts that a meat diet is better for the environment then a vegetarian one? If you can't, my facts stand, I go up to 2.5,

Again, not the case because you haven't proved that the environment is an important enough issue to sacrifice pleasure for. Hence, you can't say that they are worth an equal number of points.

This point system is ridiculous. There is no reason that health, environment, suffering and pleasure should all be worth the same number of points. In fact, I have proved that pleasure is in some cases more important for many people than health and the environment and you have failed to prove that suffering is inherent to all meat production. So we're left with pleasure, which is subjective and therefore cannot be used to claim general superiority.

Quote by: Matt Doesn't matter, I already told you I stated my question towards you in general terms for all animals.

Which would mean that you went off on a complete tangent in the middle of an argument. If that's the case, I think it's understandable for your point to be misconstrued.

[Sappho]

It's spring in Australia and time for my vegi patch to get a real work over so those summer vegi's are the best they can be.

What they need is Blood and Bone... but wait!... that means that copious numbers of animals are suffering cruelties upon cruelties so that the scraps of the carcass and blood can be diverted to the argicultural industry to satisfy the needs of vegitarians and omnivores.

All this matters naught to the omnivore, but what about the vegitarian?

Vast numbers of carcases, year after year, go to feed the plants that vegitarians eat. Vegitarians therefore, are just as guilty as omnivores for the cruelties perpetrated against animals.

What then are vegitarians doing to stop the amazing cruelty that sees blood and bone so prevalent within the agricultural industry?

Can it be said of vegitarians that they are just as guilty as omnivores in the perpetration of animal cruelty, since they too benifit from this mass killing of animals?

Why is Peta not on to this? Don't they care about the suffering vegitarians cause?

[Matt]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Are you denying that there are more vegetarian shops and restaurants than there are sources for ethical meat?

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I'm wanting proof that the market for vegetarianism is bigger. I know I stated it was earlier, but that came from an un-educated view point on the topic. So that does not count, so don't even try to bring it up again.

No need to tell them you're coming.

So you think they'll just allow you to walk right into their farm without permission? You could get sued or fined for that. That's called trespassing.

Why would a farmer want to kick or hit his animals?

And why would a person want to burn kittens or stab dogs? Some people are sadistic, and get pleasure out of seeing pain in another.

I'm not trying to prove a medical point. You can't prove a medical point through logic; you need scientific study.

You love making little debate laws, don't you? You said:

In a debate, yes. You need a study to prove something; not just someone happening to agree with you.

So would you simply like to admit you did not phrase your words correctly so I'll let this go, or do you wish to go through a word fight?

This is merely semantics. An addiction to meat is as real as an addiction to chocolate.

Yes, and some people can't stop chocolate even if it is harming them. Same would go for meats using your opinion.

No, they are superior to some and inferior to others. That doesn't average out to equal because you can't make a general rule out of something subjective. It means that meat is superior for some and vegetarianism is superior for others. You can’t simplify it further than that.

Ummm...did you make that up as you went? Question to you, if, for example, Obama won 45 states, and McCain won the rest, wouldn't you say "Obama was the superior for Americans overall in this election" or would you rattle tattle off the states Obama won then the states McCain won? If John is better then Jake at 9 out of 10 types of swimming, wouldn't you say John is the superior swimmer overall? Please answer honestly.

Also, show me a category where meat eaters have an edge over vegetarians. If you can't...then even if we follow your flawed logic, I win. Plus, you can't use pleasure, since it ends up in a tie.

But you haven't proved that health is an important issue or that it's worth the same number of points as the other issues.

Health is one of the top concerns among North Americans. Take a look at the polls. But lets forget all that stuff, since we don't use logic in our debates anyhow. So, what points would you assign to each of the four categories? Please answer this questions, or I am going to have to. Here is your opportunity.

No. Best means better than everything else; not most other things. If someone who enjoys the taste of meat finds a source for his food that doesn’t involve animal suffering, his meat-eating diet is better than vegetarianism. It it’s better than vegetarianism, vegetarianism is not the best.

Your first sentence makes sense. From then on it goes downhill. How is it better then vegetarianism suddenly (you haven't proven that even one farm does not cause suffering) since we still have two other factors in play, health and the environment?

No I don't. You haven't provided reason to believe that abuse happens on every farm and, since you made the original claim, you are the one who needs to be providing proof.

I don't have to, as you said (do you want me to find that quote?) that all I have to do is to prove that there is a reason to believe it may happen on farms. I have done that. You are the one who has to prove it doesn't on some farms. Unless of course, you are going to come out with the next cop-out of "My friend wrote that part...please ignore" Nothing would surprise me at this stage...

Or eat a steak.

Is that a rebuttal?

Again, not the case because you haven't proved that the environment is an important enough issue to sacrifice pleasure for. Hence, you can't say that they are worth an equal number of points. This point system is ridiculous. There is no reason that health, environment, suffering and pleasure should all be worth the same number of points. In fact, I have proved that pleasure is in some cases more important for many people than health and the environment and you have failed to prove that suffering is inherent to all meat production. So we're left with pleasure, which is subjective and therefore cannot be used to claim general superiority.

I thought you would get cranky at the point system, guess I was right. Afterall, it would, in every case unless you can provide evidence, put me in the winner's chair.

Ok, lets come to a settlement. Lets say pleause is worth five points, since it is so important. We tied on it, so we each get 2.5 points. Next health is a huge componet, but lets make it only worth one point. I won the point you have conceded, so currently I stand at 3.5 while you are at 2.5. Next, let's deal with the environment, and let's make it only worth a piddly .5 points. I won it, so I go up to 4 points, and you stand at 2.5. I don't even need the animal cruelty thing to win. So no matter how you slice it, even if you make pleasure worth 100 points and health .1, I win and the debate is over.

Which would mean that you went off on a complete tangent in the middle of an argument. If that's the case, I think it's understandable for your point to be misconstrued.

Actually, I didn't go off on a complete tangent. And I said it in terms which are clear as chrystal. Like normal, you wont give one point up.

Quote by: Sappho It's spring in Australia and time for my vegi patch to get a real work over so those summer vegi's are the best they can be. What they need is Blood and Bone... but wait!... that means that copious numbers of animals are suffering cruelties upon cruelties so that the scraps of the carcass and blood can be diverted to the argicultural industry to satisfy the needs of vegitarians and omnivores. All this matters naught to the omnivore, but what about the vegitarian? Vast numbers of carcases, year after year, go to feed the plants that vegitarians eat. Vegitarians therefore, are just as guilty as omnivores for the cruelties perpetrated against animals. What then are vegitarians doing to stop the amazing cruelty that sees blood and bone so prevalent within the agricultural industry? Can it be said of vegitarians that they are just as guilty as omnivores in the perpetration of animal cruelty, since they too benifit from this mass killing of animals? Why is Peta not on to this? Don't they care about the suffering vegitarians cause?

It doesn't matter, since the animal wasn't killed for that reason. It was killed for its meat, not its bones and blood. Your attempt to go after vegetarians is fruitless yet again.

[Sappho]

It doesn't matter, since the animal wasn't killed for that reason. It was killed for its meat, not its bones and blood. Your attempt to go after vegetarians is fruitless yet again. - Matt.

It does matter, because vegitarians are using the meat industry and cruelty towards animals for their own gain.

What's more... the meat was killed for its skin to make leather, its meat to satisfy omnivores, and it's blood and bone for the agricultural industry.... not to mention pet food, lard and wot not.

The animal is killed and every part of it used... It's a business Matt and they seek to make profit anyway they can.. and not just for omnivores.

Your attempt to defend vegitarians is fruitless yet again. LOL.

[Matt]

Quote by: Sappho It does matter, because vegitarians are using the meat industry and cruelty towards animals for their own gain. What's more... the meat was killed for its skin to make leather, its meat to satisfy omnivores, and it's blood and bone for the agricultural industry.... not to mention pet food, lard and wot not. The animal is killed and every part of it used... It's a business Matt and they seek to make profit anyway they can.. and not just for omnivores. Your attempt to defend vegitarians is fruitless yet again. LOL.

No, they aren't personally. They are not causing the problems. Plus, could you provide evidence of this happening, preferably not from a small place in Australia?

They aren't killing the animals for the blood, they are killing them for the meat. Therefore, it is causing no more abuse or no more animals being killed by using some of the remains to use in agriculture.

Actually, you cannot say 'yet again'. Last time you gave up after a boat load of evidence was unveiled

[Sappho]

Did I give up? Or is this merely a secondary site I peruse?

No, they aren't personally - Matt

Who is talking about personal responsibility? I'm not. I refer to Vegitarians... it's a collective noun.

Otherwise, I don't think you understand the concept of Business, if it is that you think those animals are being killed only for their meat. But you could be right... tell ya what... why not give me a boat load of evidence from the meat industry that only meat is being harvested from the carcass.

And if the meat industry is not harvesting the blood and bone for our plants (who like that kind of stuff, unlike the vegitarians that eat them)... where on earth are we getting it from?

I hope you are not suggesting then that there is a blood and bone industry out there discarding the meat? Omnivores would not be impressed.

[Sappho]

And anyways... Vegitarians have known for ages that the plants they eat, eat blood and bone by the bucket loads... it makes them so big and strong!

Because they have always known about the blood and bone, and because they have always known from where blood and bone comes, and because they have done zero, ziltch, nadda, nuffin, and naught even to change the this oh so cruel practice... they become complicate in the cruelty and death of vast numbers of innocent animals.

And if you didn't know before Matt, you know now, that the blood and bone you gain for your vegi's is brought to you via cruelty to animals.

Oh the hypocracy.

Much better to do as I do and source your blood and bone from humane animal farmers.

Even better... Vegitarians should stop using blood and bone and accept the inferior quality of plant that results. It's much less cruel.

LOL