Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know they are in some parts of the world, especially parts of Asia and in the case of horses some countries in Europe.

None are commercially available in the US though.

My feelings are.. horses yes, dogs and cats no.

Horses are basically ungulate herbivores with about the same intelligence as cows or sheep.

Dogs and cats are far more intelligent and for this reason I am opposed to it.

What are some other opinions?

Horses are more intelligent than cows and especially sheep; they're also possibly smarter than cats. So if your sole reason on deciding if an animal should be eaten or not is I.Q., you should be against chowing down on a equine-burger.

I say spare the whales, eat dolphin.

Originally posted by Soleran
I say spare the whales, eat dolphin.

When it comes to eating mammals; it's best to stick to herbivores for taste purposes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Horses are more intelligent than cows and especially sheep; they're also possibly smarter than cats. So if your sole reason on deciding if an animal should be eaten or not is I.Q., you should be against chowing down on a equine-burger.


Horses are NOT more intelligent than cats and it's certainly debatable as to whether or not they are smarter than cows or sheep, there is no evidence to support your claim. Horses may be more trainable than either, but that doesn't make them smarter.

I wouldnt eat either of the 3 listed here

If it is vital for our survival. Otherwise, no they should not be sold as food.

If there is no need to eat horse, dog or cat, there is no need to kill and sell them.

They are all composed of eukaryotic cells and are delicious. If they aren't meant for food, then why do they taste so good?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
They are all composed of eukaryotic cells and are delicious. If they aren't meant for food, then why do they taste so good? I hate the way you through in basic terminolgy trying to sound clever

it's only true

Originally posted by AngryManatee
They are all composed of eukaryotic cells and are delicious. If they aren't meant for food, then why do they taste so good?

They do not taste good to some vegetarians. I bet there are more out there that does not like them.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
Horses are NOT more intelligent than cats and it's certainly debatable as to whether or not they are smarter than cows or sheep, there is no evidence to support your claim. Horses may be more trainable than either, but that doesn't make them smarter.

Wrong... and if "trainable" isn't at least some means of measuring intelligence in respect to animals; where do you stand in saying cats are certainly smarter?

Also, you should be against eating pigs as pigs are more intelligent than dogs as tests indicate.

just please dont eat horses...race them and then gamble on em...and if they lose...turn em into glue

I'm an animal friend, and I do not think killing animals in-case we need food later is a right thing to do..

Originally posted by Darth Extecute
If it is vital for our survival. Otherwise, no they should not be sold as food.

If there is no need to eat horse, dog or cat, there is no need to kill and sell them.

There's technically no "need" to eat any meat.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There's technically no "need" to eat any meat.

-AC

You do realize humans are not herbivores?

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize humans are not herbivores?

Yeah, I realise.

I said there's technically no need to eat any meat.

-AC

unless you want a healthy amount of protein (and other essential nutrients) that is most easily processed by the human body through the consumption of meat.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2


Horses are basically ungulate herbivores with about the same intelligence as cows or sheep.

Dogs and cats are far more intelligent and for this reason I am opposed to it.

For that reason I condone the eating of mentally deficient humans.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
unless you want a healthy amount of protein (and other essential nutrients) that is most easily processed by the human body through the consumption of meat.

Terrible sentence, but at the heart of it I believe there to be much, as the French say, le BS.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, I realise.

I said there's technically no need to eat any meat.

-AC

You know that meat contains vital nutrients and vitamins that are necessary for survival?

And besides, it tastes great.

I'll have some gravy with my veal, please.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
You know that meat contains vital nutrients and vitamins that are necessary for survival?



List them.

Also, show me the people that die as a result of not eating meat.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
You know that meat contains vital nutrients and vitamins that are necessary for survival?

And besides, it tastes great.

I'll have some gravy with my veal, please.

Tasting great is two things:

1) Not a need, 2) Subjective.

As said previously; There's no NEED to eat ANY meat.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
List them.

Also, show me the people that die as a result of not eating meat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Necessity

I don't want to argue over this, and I didn't mean to sound so snotty with my post. I couldn't care less if you don't eat meat, it's your choice and shouldn't even be a subject for debate.

Just don't tell me it's wrong to eat meat and it's all good.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_eating_meat#Necessity

I don't want to argue over this, and I didn't mean to sound so snotty with my post. I couldn't care less if you don't eat meat, it's your choice and shouldn't even be a subject for debate.

Just don't tell me it's wrong to eat meat and it's all good.

Necessity:

"In certain cultures, such as the Inuit, surviving without meat is not possible due to the climate and local flora and fauna. Certain areas, particularly mountainous areas, are not suitable for producing human crops, yet are still useful for allowing livestock to graze.".

I'll be waiting on back up of your original claim. How meat is necessary for survival to regular humans, not inuits.

Go on.

-AC

Try and finish the post-tence and see what he does.

He's not driving a Mini-Metro.

Slightly (slightly) more on topic, that link wasn't anything. Literally. It didn't exist.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, I realise.

I said there's technically no need to eat any meat.

-AC

Yeah, that would be technically right, health and quality of being would suffer though; especially during childhood growth... unless you had a very specific and broad vegetarian diet.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Necessity:

"In certain cultures, such as the Inuit, surviving without meat is not possible due to the climate and local flora and fauna. Certain areas, particularly mountainous areas, are not suitable for producing human crops, yet are still useful for allowing livestock to graze.".

I'll be waiting on back up of your original claim. How meat is necessary for survival to regular humans, not inuits.

Go on.

-AC

As I said, I don't want to debate over this at all. It's your choice to not eat meat, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I also did not mean to sound so snotty in my original post.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, that would be technically right, health and quality of being would suffer though; especially during childhood growth... unless you had a very specific vegetarian diet.

IE, a balanced diet (that does not require meat).

Originally posted by Robtard
When it comes to eating mammals; it's best to stick to herbivores for taste purposes.

Shark tastes great.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
As I said, I don't want to debate over this at all. It's your choice to not eat meat, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I also did not mean to sound so snotty in my original post.

Why post? You think you can just post random claims assuming I'm not aware of things and then say "I don't want to debate."?

It doesn't work like that. "I don't want to debate...but *Post*".

-AC

Originally posted by Soleran
Shark tastes great.

Sharks aren't mammals...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why post? You think you can just post random claims assuming I'm not aware of things and then say "I don't want to debate."?

It doesn't work like that. "I don't want to debate...but *Post*".

-AC
I am fully aware of that, and realize my wrong.

And no, I do not want to debate over it, because it's a matter of choice whether you want to eat meat or not... your dietary situation is of no concern to me. I posted my first post for no reason, really, and I realize it was entirely unnecessary.

Originally posted by J-Beowulf
I am fully aware of that, and realize my wrong.

And no, I do not want to debate over it, because it's a matter of choice whether you want to eat meat or not... your dietary situation is of no concern to me. I posted my first post for no reason, really, and I realize it was entirely unnecessary.

It's a discussion board, it's quite ignorant to assume you can just post your beliefs and have no one challenge them, especially when you make a remark about someone else, but fine, apology accepted.

It's not about choice to eat meat or not, it's about it being necessary for survival; It's not.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's a discussion board, it's quite ignorant to assume you can just post your beliefs and have no one challenge them, especially when you make a remark about someone else, but fine, apology accepted.

It's not about choice to eat meat or not, it's about it being necessary for survival; It's not.

-AC

Trust me, I expected someone to challenge them...

And then I realized I wasn't arguing with conspiracy theorists.. and felt like an ass.

Sigh.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
IE, a balanced diet (that does not require meat).

Extremely balanced and most people do not have the option of mixing leafy greens, beans, nuts, fruits, garden vegetables, starches etc.; all together in their daily diet.

Also, if you look at third world countries where children lack meat, their adulthood suffers from the lack of protein that meat readily gives over other foods.

But yeah, in the end "you" can survive without meat, I just wouldn't recommend a vegetarian diet unless you have good working knowledge of dietary needs and access to a wide variety of non-meat foods

So basically, if you have to eat meat, then you have to eat it. Hardly generally applicable, I'm sure we all agree.

It's not as if meat is a panacea for a bad diet as well.

There's nothing in it that can't be found elsewhere.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

Terrible sentence, but at the heart of it I believe there to be much, as the French say, le BS.

My fragmented sentences are not the point here. It has been shown that protein is more readily absorbed from meat when compared to eating vegetarian substitutes like soy or tofu. The fact that vegetarians have to be careful and make sure they are getting plenty of iron, protein, Vitamins D and B-12, calcium, zinc and other nutrients, shows why meat is an essential part to the human diet, since we are omnivores after all.

Edit: B-12, which is obtained exclusively by eating animals (although synthetic supplements are available, but they aren't as efficiently asorbed as natural B-12) is especially important since B-12 deficiency can cause anemia and nerve damage.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So basically, if you have to eat meat, then you have to eat it. Hardly generally applicable, I'm sure we all agree.

It's not as if meat is a panacea for a bad diet as well.

There's nothing in it that can't be found elsewhere.

I never said meat was a miracle food and on the flip-side just eating meat wouldn't be healthy either. I am saying that meat is good for you and it contains things you need (protein, amino acids etc.), that doesn't mean you can't get those needed nutrients elsewhere, as I said you can live healthy being a vegetarian if you do it correctly, but meat does have higher levels of certain needed nutrients than other foods.

In short, there is nothing wrong with eating meat and it isn't bad for you (unless abused), so eat meat if you like as we are adapted to eat meat... or don't.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
It has been shown that protein is more readily absorbed from meat when compared to eating vegetarian substitutes like soy or tofu.

By whom? Don't make random claims without backing.

Originally posted by AngryManatee

The fact that vegetarians have to be careful and make sure they are getting plenty of iron, protein, Vitamins D and B-12, calcium, zinc and other nutrients, shows why meat is an essential part to the human diet, since we are omnivores after all.

Yes, so do meat eaters. As I said, meat isn't the solution to all dietary problems, is it? It's a source of some things, all of which can be gained elsewhere.

So, that's essentially that. Meat isn't necessary.

Originally posted by Robtard
I never said meat was a miracle food and on the flip-side just eating meat wouldn't be healthy either. I am saying that meat is good for you

Highly debatable.

Originally posted by Robtard

and it contains things you need (protein, amino acids etc.)

Proteins are made of amino acids. Suspect!

Originally posted by Robtard

that doesn't mean you can't get those needed nutrients elsewhere, as I said you can live healthy being a vegetarian if you do it correctly, but meat does have higher levels of certain needed nutrients than other foods.

Go on...

In todays world meat isn't required to sustain human life.

10 essential amino acids are required, find a way to mix and match foods to replace them.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
By whom? Don't make random claims without backing.
Meat isn't necessary.

As long as you're cool with anemia due to lack of Vitamin B-12. Meat is necessary for a normal diet, just not in the huge amounts that your average American consumes. It is shown that a daily consumption of 4-6 oz of meat is necessary for a healthy diet.

These random claims come from my Biology textbook and also my Physical Anthropology textbook.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
My fragmented sentences are not the point here. It has been shown that protein is more readily absorbed from meat when compared to eating vegetarian substitutes like soy or tofu. The fact that vegetarians have to be careful and make sure they are getting plenty of iron, protein, Vitamins D and B-12, calcium, zinc and other nutrients, shows why meat is an essential part to the human diet, since we are omnivores after all.

Edit: B-12, which is obtained exclusively by eating animals (although synthetic supplements are available, but they aren't as efficiently asorbed as natural B-12) is especially important since B-12 deficiency can cause anemia and nerve damage.

Feel free to stop making up bs anytime soon.

Vegetarians exist, this very fact proves that meat is not an essential part of everyday life. Not all vegetarians are anemic, I'm not sure who wrote that book of yours, possibly Fisher Price.

-AC

Originally posted by AngryManatee
As long as you're cool with anemia due to lack of Vitamin B-12. Meat is necessary for a normal diet, just not in the huge amounts that your average American consumes. It is shown that a daily consumption of 4-6 oz of meat is necessary for a healthy diet.

These random claims come from my Biology textbook and also my Physical Anthropology textbook.


Dude lack of iron is the major cause of anemia not low vitamin b-12, that could be a cause however it's not the major factor.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
As long as you're cool with anemia due to lack of Vitamin B-12.

B12 is in dairy, and can be taken in supplement form.

Originally posted by AngryManatee

Meat is necessary for a normal diet, just not in the huge amounts that your average American consumes.

You just made that up, didn't you?
Originally posted by AngryManatee


It is shown that a daily consumption of 4-6 oz of meat is necessary for a healthy diet.

By whom? I know lots of people that are healthy despite not eating meat.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom

Highly debatable.

Proteins are made of amino acids. Suspect!

Go on...

You want to debate that meat isn't good for you? Certain meats and especially the ways some meat is processed isn't good for you (e.g. bacon), but meat in it's basic form is good for the human body as we are designed to eat meat.

Yes, I was just naming things off the top of my head that meat contains.

e.g. if you want protein, than meat has more of it than a bundle of carrots; not saying you HAVE to and can only get protein from meat, but it's readily there. Now, I can eat a jar of peanut butter and get more protein than a filet mignon; that doesn't mean I should or need to substitute.

Originally posted by Robtard
You want to debate that meat isn't good for you? Certain meats and especially the ways meat is processed isn't good for you (i.e. bacon), but meat in it's basic form is good for the human body as we are designed to eat meat.

Yes, I was just naming things off the top of my head that meat contains.

e.g. if you want protein, than meat has more of it than a bundle of carrots; not saying you HAVE to and can only get protein from meat, but it's readily there. Now, I can eat a jar of peanut butter and get more protein than a filet mignon; that doesn't mean I should or need to substitute.

Meat = saturated fat = more calories and significantly greater chance of cardiovascular disease.

By the way bacon isn't nec a processed meat either, it's cured not "processed."

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Feel free to stop making up bs anytime soon.

Vegetarians exist, this very fact proves that meat is not an essential part of everyday life.

-AC

It is essential if you want to lead a normal everyday life. As I said before, why do you think vegetarians have to regulate their diet so carefully in order to make sure they obtain necessary amounts of nutrients?

Originally posted by Robtard
You want to debate that meat isn't good for you?

Certain meats and especially the ways meat is processed isn't good for you (i.e. bacon), but meat in it's basic form is good for the human body as we are designed to eat meat.

So I take it you eat all your meat straight off the carcass, as designed.

Originally posted by Robtard
You want to debate that meat isn't good for you? Certain meats and especially the ways meats are processed aren't good for you, but meat in it's basic form is good for the human body as we are designed to eat meat.

Yes, I was just naming things off the top of my head that meat contains.

e.g. if you want protein, than meat has more of it than a bundle of carrots; not saying you HAVE to and can only get protein from meat, but it's readily there. Now, I can eat a jar of peanut butter and get more protein than a filet mignon; that doesn't mean I should or need to substitute.

Meat in its basic form? Raw meat isn't good for you, and meat that people eat commonly actually rots in your stomach.

Amino acids are what protein is made of, no need to name them both.

Where is all this bs coming from of "It's readily there."? What does that mean? It's readily anywhere in any form if you look. For those who want it in other forums, it's not some arduous task to acquire it.

-AC

Originally posted by Soleran
Meat = saturated fat = more calories and significantly greater chance of cardiovascular disease.

saturated fat= cheese. What do you think lean meat is?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
It is essential if you want to lead a normal everyday life. As I said before, why do you think vegetarians have to regulate their diet so carefully in order to make sure they obtain necessary amounts of nutrients?

It's not essential, you fool. What are you talking about?

ANY human should regulate their diet, the fact that some people do so carefully means they are more sensible, and probably more healthier than you.

Guzzling down meat because it's "easier" means nothing.

-AC

So...where does all this put lemurs? Gray area here...

Originally posted by Soleran
Meat = saturated fat = more calories and significantly greater chance of cardiovascular disease.

By the way bacon isn't nec a processed meat either, it's cured not "processed."

Like I said, not all meat is great.

*** for tat... Look up the definition of 'Processed' ad you'll find:

"to subject to a special process or treatment"

So is anybody going to prove that meat is essential?

Prove, not say, and it's not about "I just choose to eat meat.".

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So I take it you eat all your meat straight off the carcass, as designed.

No, that was WAY back in the day, cooked meat is easier to digest, gotta love evolution and adaptation.

I'm curious, do you think our teeth and intestinal tract are designed not to process meat?

Originally posted by Robtard
No, that was WAY back in the day, cooked meat is easier to digest, gotta love evolution and adaptation.

Yeah. Think that one through to its conclusion.

Originally posted by Robtard

I'm curious, do you think our teeth and intestinal tract are designed not to process meat?

Hair is designed to keep me warm, but I still wear a coat when it's cold.

Cos you've gotta love evolution and adaptation.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Meat in its basic form? Raw meat isn't good for you, and meat that people eat commonly actually rots in your stomach.

Amino acids are what protein is made of, no need to name them both.

Where is all this bs coming from of "It's readily there."? What does that mean? It's readily anywhere in any form if you look. For those who want it in other forums, it's not some arduous task to acquire it.

-AC

I didn't say raw, I said basic, like a slab of cooked venison. Meat rots in peoples stomachs? That must be some seriously slow digestion.

Yea, I agreed and covered that above... Point for you anyways!

B.S.? How so... and if you don't understand "readily there" I don't know how else to break it down... If you want protein, meat is a great source of it, I never said the ONLY source. I didn't say it was an arduous task.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not essential, you fool. What are you talking about?

ANY human should regulate their diet, the fact that some people do so carefully means they are more sensible, and probably more healthier than you.

Guzzling down meat because it's "easier" means nothing.

-AC

So people who regulate their diet carefully are more sensible? That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet. They have to regulate it so carefully because of the possibility of nutritional deficiencies due to the lack of nutrients they aren't getting from just eating a small (4-6 oz) amount of meat.

I never said anything about guzzling down meat. I only said that a small portion is essential to being naturally healthy.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I only said that a small portion is essential to being naturally healthy.


False

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yeah. Think that one through to its conclusion.



Hair is designed to keep me warm, but I still wear a coat when it's cold.

Cos you've gotta love evolution and adaptation.

Well, as to date our teeth and intestinal tracts are still designed to breakdown and process meat, think that one through...

Are you a vegetarian or a non-meat eater?

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say raw, I said basic, like a slab of cooked venison. Meat rots in peoples stomachs? That must be some seriously slow digestion.

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

Originally posted by Robtard
Yea, I agreed and covered that above... Point for you anyways!

Yeah.

Originally posted by Robtard
B.S.? How so... and if you don't understand "readily there" I don't know how else to break it down... If you want protein, meat is a great source of it. I didn't say it was an arduous task.

The point is, there are other great sources, with less negatives.

So, try again.

-AC

I haven't seen any proof that we NEED to eat meat to be healthy.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
So people who regulate their diet carefully are more sensible? That's the stupidest thing I've heard yet. They have to regulate it so carefully because of the possibility of nutritional deficiencies due to the lack of nutrients they aren't getting from just eating a small (4-6 oz) amount of meat.

Of course they are. You think people who eat whatever, regardless of whether it's healthy for their bodies or not, are more sensible regarding health, than those who take care in eating things that aren't bad for them or contain things that are bad?

You can get anything that's in meat from other sources. What are you not getting?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I never said anything about guzzling down meat. I only said that a small portion is essential to being naturally healthy.

It's not essential, though.

-AC

Originally posted by Soleran
False

proof?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So is anybody going to prove that meat is essential?

Prove, not say, and it's not about "I just choose to eat meat.".

-AC

That's a loaded question.

Basic answer is "No, meat isn't essential for survival"

But that doesn't make meat bad for humans and in the end, we are designed to break down and process meat. So if you want to eat meat, eat meat and for health; eat healthy meats.

You're asking for proof, Manatee?

You've not proven a thing since you've been here. You said small servings of meat are essential to survive or live, it's factual that they are not, and you just say "They are.".

Your reason is that it contains vital nutrients, all of which can be found elsewhere.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, as to date our teeth and intestinal tracts are still designed to breakdown and process meat, think that one through...

Yes, we are able to eat meat. We can eat it. Meat.

We are able to eat it.

I didn't say otherwise.

...So?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
proof?

Proof? People that do not eat meat, and are healthy.

It's a really stupid point that you pursue. You must see that.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a loaded question.

Basic answer is "No, meat isn't essential for survival"

But that doesn't make meat bad for humans and in the end, we are designed to break down and process meat. So if you want to eat meat, eat meat and for health; eat healthy meats.

No need for that last part at all. The answer is: No, meat isn't needed.

End of debate really.

-AC

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus2
I know they are in some parts of the world, especially parts of Asia and in the case of horses some countries in Europe.

None are commercially available in the US though.

My feelings are.. horses yes, dogs and cats no.

Horses are basically ungulate herbivores with about the same intelligence as cows or sheep.

Dogs and cats are far more intelligent and for this reason I am opposed to it.

What are some other opinions?

Well it's a bit tricky...see, I can say "There is no need to sell domestic animals for food" and someone else is going come here and say "well, a pig can be domesticated, you eat them" so I think to myself, and say "Pigs are mass produced and breed for comsumption" then that other person can say "there are countless dogs and cats in the streets of the world" Which is true...but those animals cannot be eaten...because..those are really not for human comsumption. Those animals are not process to be eaten...they're not good for you.

The point of my babbling is this...is not about which animal is more intelligent or cute...you can't really eat animals that are process properly in butcher houses or factories. If you're one of those people who don't trust or feel those factories are doing a good job processing the meat...well, then, go Organic. You'll pay more for the meat..but it will be at least more set up to your standards.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

"How humans are not physically created to eat meat" That's a huge LOL... Site reeks of biased vegetarian nonsense.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah.

Well, that's why you debate isn't it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The point is, there are other great sources, with less negatives.

So, try again.

-AC

Yes, there are other sources; I said as much, that doesn't make them automatically better though... your point is subjective, so therefore pointless.

Originally posted by Robtard
"How humans are not physically created to eat meat" That's a huge LOL... Site reeks of biased vegetarian nonsense.


That site is monkey spunk

The whole claw and sweat pore analogy = poop.

Originally posted by Robtard
"How humans are not physically created to eat meat" That's a huge LOL... Site reeks of biased vegetarian nonsense.

Your posts and Manatee's posts reek of "Not knowing quite what we're on about" nonsense, but that hasn't actually stopped you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well, that's why you debate isn't it?

Not really, clutching for straws?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, there are other sources; I said as much, that doesn't make them automatically better though... your point is subjective, so therefore pointless.

Who's discussing better? I said meat isn't needed for survival, and vegetarians can survive perfectly well without it. In some case, vegetarians are much more healthy than meat eaters.

So it wasn't pointless. You're going off in other directions because you've run out of anything.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
"How humans are not physically created to eat meat" That's a huge LOL... Site reeks of biased vegetarian nonsense.





Vegan Propaganda.

Just like omnivore propaganda has people here, or HAD people here, believing meat was essential for survival.

No difference. Except vegetarians have the added back up of "Meat isn't needed.", which is a fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, we are able to eat meat. We can eat it. Meat.

We are able to eat it.

I didn't say otherwise.

...So?


We're also able to eat shit. We can eat it. Shit... That doesn't mean we should though as it's not good for us.

Point is and more correctly, we are designed to eat meat so it isn't bad for us (if done healthy).

Originally posted by Robtard
We're also able to eat shit. We can eat it. Shit... That doesn't mean we should though as it's not good for us.

Point is and more correctly, we are designed to eat meat so it isn't bad for us (if done healthy).

You're simply assuming meat is good for you because it has good things in it. It has things that aren't good for you also.

You can skip those, get the good things that meat provides elsewhere, and be altogether healthier.

So again, meat isn't needed. Stop trying to shift the debate.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Of course they are. You think people who eat whatever, regardless of whether it's healthy for their bodies or not, are more sensible regarding health, than those who take care in eating things that aren't bad for them or contain things that are bad?

You can get anything that's in meat from other sources. What are you not getting?

It's not essential, though.

-AC

It is apparent that your first statement is purely opinion. I don't regulate my eating habits (which can be quite voracious at times), and I get my blood checked on a monthly basis due to some medication I'm taking, and I have had no problems with my health whatsoever. I never said that people who eat like that are more sensible regarding health, that's an assumption you made for some reason. I merely stated that vegetarians who regulate their diet the way they do are not more sensible. I said that they do it because of necessity.

You don't get B-12, tryptophan or lysine from plants. You can get some in dairy products, but it does require a larger consumption of dairy in order to obtain necessary amounts as compared to eating a comparitively smaller amount of meat.

It is essential if you want to be naturally healthy. (It was essential during the times or early man though)

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Your posts and Manatee's posts reek of "Not knowing quite what we're on about" nonsense, but that hasn't actually stopped you.

Not really, clutching for straws?

Who's discussing better? I said meat isn't needed for survival, and vegetarians can survive perfectly well without it. In some case, vegetarians are much more healthy than meat eaters.

So it wasn't pointless. You're going off in other directions because you've run out of anything.

-AC

Really... funny how I agreed that meat isn't essential for survival but stand that meat (w/ exceptions) isn't bad for you. Both of which are true.

No, just an observation as there was no need to point out something that someone had previously pointed out and I had agreed to.

Obviously in your own mind you're discussing better as I agree with your main point that "meat isn't necessary" yet you can't see that.

Yes, it was pointless when you added your biased and subjective "negatives" assertion.

And in some cases people who do eat meat are healthier than vegetarians; so what's the point in saying the opposite?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
It is apparent that your first statement is purely opinion. I don't regulate my eating habits (which can be quite voracious at times), and I get my blood checked on a monthly basis due to some medication I'm taking, and I have had no problems with my health whatsoever. I never said that people who eat like that are more sensible regarding health, that's an assumption you made for some reason. I merely stated that vegetarians who regulate their diet the way they do are not more sensibel I said that they do it because of necessity.

That's just balls though, isn't it? Because the news is full of people who binge on food and suffer the consequences. Just because you SAY you don't, doesn't mean that regulating your diet isn't more sensible. It is, I don't see how anybody could say anything else.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
You don't get tryptophan or lysine from plants. You can get some in dairy products, but it does require a larger consumption of dairy in order to obtain necessary amounts as compared to eating a comparitively smaller amount of meat.

You think vegetarians go around eating plants? Are you that thick?

I'll say it again; Everything that's necessary in meat, you can factually get either in dairy or supplement form as previously stated, and lead a very healthy life. It's not theory, it's fact.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
It is essential if you want to be naturally healthy. (It was essential during the times or early man though)

It's not essential. Not sure why you believe it is.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Really... funny how I agreed that meat isn't essential for survival but stand that meat (w/ exceptions) isn't bad for you. Both of which are true.

Yeah, you say that because it happens to contain some good things. These can be acquired elsewhere, avoiding the negatives of meat and therefore be althogether healthier.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, just an observation as there was no need to point out something that someone had previously pointed out and I had agreed to.

I hadn't seen that, if I had, I wouldn't have posted it, my bad.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously in your own mind you're discussing better as I agree with your main point that "meat isn't necessary" yet you can't see that.

I can. You're just harping on about meat for no reason.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, it was pointless when you added your biased and subjective "negative" assertion.

That doesn't make my point pointless.

-AC

Originally posted by AngryManatee
You don't get B-12, tryptophan or lysine from plants. You can get some in dairy products, but it does require a larger consumption of dairy in order to obtain necessary amounts as compared to eating a comparitively smaller amount of meat




Eggs, milk, cheese.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're also able to eat shit. We can eat it. Shit... That doesn't mean we should though as it's not good for us.

Wait...at least let me destroy the point! It's no fun when you do it yourself.

Originally posted by Robtard

Point is and more correctly, we are designed to eat meat so it isn't bad for us (if done healthy).

Let's stop for a minute.

The debate was 'meat is essential'.

Now it's, what? We are able to eat meat, so if we eat it, healthily, it is healthy?

Is meat essential?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's just balls though, isn't it? Because the news is full of people who binge on food and suffer the consequences. Just because you SAY you don't, doesn't mean that regulating your diet isn't more sensible. It is, I don't see how anybody could say anything else.



You think vegetarians go around eating plants? Are you that thick?

I'll say it again; Everything that's necessary in meat, you can factually get either in dairy or supplement form as previously stated, and lead a very healthy life. It's not theory, it's fact.



It's not essential. Not sure why you believe it is.

-AC

You're making assumptions again. I was stating that vegetarians have to regulate their diets in order to maintain healthy nutrition. No more digressions please?

I also stated that you can get some of these nutrients from dairy, but it does require a larger consumption in order to obtain the same amounts as you would get from consuming a smaller portion of meat, so no, I did not state that I think vegetarians only eat plants. That's just another assumption made by you. No more digressions please?

It is essential to being naturally healthy. No more misstatements please?

Originally posted by Soleran
Eggs, milk, cheese.

Yes. Those things. But in larger amounts as compared to what you get from eating a comparatively smaller portion of meat. You're also counterproductive in nominating cheese since it has a lot more saturated fat then meat.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Yes. Those things. But in larger amounts as compared to what you get from eating a comparatively smaller portion of meat, as I stated before. You're also counterproductive in nominating cheese since it has a lot more saturated fat then meat.

**** wrong button

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, you say that because it happens to contain some good things. These can be acquired elsewhere, avoiding the negatives of meat and therefore be althogether healthier.

I hadn't seen that, if I had, I wouldn't have posted it, my bad.

I can. You're just harping on about meat for no reason.

That doesn't make my point pointless.

-AC

For the 10th (or so) time I agree that you can get protein etc. elsewhere... That isn't the point I'm making. Point is meat isn't empirically bad for you, yes, some meats are very unhealthy and eating too much meat isn't healthy either; that doesn't take away that meat isn't bad for humans and we are designed to breakdown and process it. On that note, a bad/unbalanced vegetarian diet is bad for you too. So it boils down to "healthy diet" which can (not have to) include meat.

No worries then.

Because the tone of the discussion has slyly turned into a "negative about eating meat"

I added/edited: "And in some cases people who do eat meat are healthier than vegetarians; so what's the point in saying the opposite?" while you were replying.

If your stance simply is "meat isn't essential" and you're not going on about negatives and wrongdoings of eating meat, as noted, I agree; people can live without meat.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
You're making assumptions again. I was stating that vegetarians have to regulate their diets in order to maintain healthy nutrition. No more digressions please?

Yes, and that's precisely why it's smarter to do that as opposed to going crazy with food. So why you're making the odd assumption that A) It isn't and B) Anyone who does is subjected to horrible side effects, is just silly.

I know vegetarians who eat casually, but stick to a clear diet. It doesn't mean it has to be nazi-esque.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I also stated that you can get some of these nutrients from dairy, but it does require a larger consumption in order to obtain the same amounts as you would get from consuming a smaller portion of meat, so no, I did not state that I think vegetarians only eat plants. That's just another assumption made by you. No more digressions please?

Based on what? Where on Earth are you getting this info and can you prove it? Because pharmacies wouldn't sell supplements for vegetarians if they weren't substantial would they?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
It is essential to being naturally healthy. No more misstatements please?

It's not, it's been factually proven.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Wait...at least let me destroy the point! It's no fun when you do it yourself.

Let's stop for a minute.

The debate was 'meat is essential'.

Now it's, what? We are able to eat meat, so if we eat it, healthily, it is healthy?

Is meat essential?

What point? I said "shit" was bad for you, are you equating meat with shit or saying meat is bad for you?

That's how it started but it ever so slyly moved towards 'meat being bad, wrong, negative etc.'

I already agreed several post above that meat isn't essential, as vegetarians do survive.

Originally posted by Robtard
For the 10th (or so) time I agree that you can get protein etc. elsewhere... That isn't the point I'm making. Point is meat isn't empirically bad for you, yes, some meats are very unhealthy and eating too much meat isn't healthy either; that doesn't take away that meat isn't bad for humans and we are designed to breakdown and process it. On that note, a bad/unbalanced vegetarian diet is bad for you. So it boils down to "healthy diet" which can (not have to) include meat.

And why is that your point? Considering this debate is about meat being essential. Is it your point because you don't have another one?

Originally posted by Robtard
Because the tone of the discussion has slyly turned into a "negative about eating meat"

That doesn't make my point pointless, though.

Originally posted by Robtard
I added/edited: "And in some cases people who do eat meat are healthier than vegetarians; so what's the point in saying the opposite?" while you were replying.

Because if you break it down, as you're so fond of doing, a balanced vegetarian diet is the healthiest diet.

Originally posted by Robtard
If your stance simply is "meat isn't essential" and you're not going on about negatives and wrongdoings of eating meat, as noted, I agree; people can live without meat.

Well it is technically about negatives of eating meat too.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Wait for what? I said "shit" was bad for you, are you equating meat with shit or saying meat is bad for you?

I just wonder what you presumed to achieve by pointing out that we can eat meat. So what?

Originally posted by Robtard

I already agreed several post above that meat isn't essential, as vegetarians do survive.

That is the current point of debate.

The only reason this has "slyly" become anything OTHER than "Meat: Essential or not?" is because people came in here acting like they could prove otherwise and now, merely 5 pages in, have nothing.

Except Angry Manatee, who is just being silly.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I just wonder what you presumed to achieve by pointing out that we can eat meat. So what?



That is the current point of debate.

Point that we are not designed to be strict vegetarians, though we can survice with the proper diet.

You sure? It keeps shifting.

Originally posted by Robtard
You sure? It keeps shifting.

Who shifted it? I've only ever been saying meat isn't essential.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Point that we are not designed to be strict vegetarians, though we can survice with the proper diet.

Ok.

We're also designed to start having sex at 12 or so, but we don't. Either way, it's not the point.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I know vegetarians who eat casually, but stick to a clear diet. It doesn't mean it has to be nazi-esque.

Based on what? Where on Earth are you getting this info and can you prove it? Because pharmacies wouldn't sell supplements for vegetarians if they weren't substantial would they?

It's not, it's been factually proven.

-AC

I never said it had to be nazi-esque. No more assumptions please?

My information comes from My Cellular and Molecular Biology class and textbok, and also my Physical Anthropology class and textbook. Pharmacists do sell supplements, but studies have shown that supplements aren't as readily absorbed as when consumed naturally. I stated this before.

It is essential to being naturally healthy (i.e. recieving all necessary nutrients through the consumption of organic substances rather than artificial supplements, which many vegetarians require to maintatin a healthy diet).

Originally posted by AngryManatee

It is essential to being naturally healthy (i.e. recieving all necessary nutrients through the consumption of organic substances rather than artificial supplements, which many vegetarians require to maintatin a healthy diet).

Eggs.

I'd also like to know where it says that a vegetarian diet is the healthiest. No vegetarian websites please. Only unbiased ones.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And why is that your point? Considering this debate is about meat being essential. Is it your point because you don't have another one?

That doesn't make my point pointless, though.

Because if you break it down, as you're so fond of doing, a balanced vegetarian diet is the healthiest diet.

Well it is technically about negatives of eating meat too.

-AC

You're the one with the "negatives about meat", e.g. your link. If you had kept it merely at "meat isn't essential" and the debate hadn't moved I wouldn't be replying as I agreed that people can live without meat.

You replied to the wrong part with the "Doesn't make my point pointless"

Talk about B.S. and being utterly lead by your own subjective views... A TRUE balanced diet contains meat, if eating meat was truly bad for humans, then evolution wouldn't have designed us to do so. Please show where science has proven vegetarianism is the "healthiest".

Then technially the debate did change from just "is meat essential as it changed from the original "Horse as food" bit.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Eggs.

Some vegetarians will not consume anything that is a product of animals

Originally posted by AngryManatee
I never said it had to be nazi-esque. No more assumptions please?

My information comes from My Cellular and Molecular Biology class and textbok, and also my Physical Anthropology class and textbook. Pharmacists do sell supplements, but studies have shown that supplements aren't as readily absorbed as when consumed naturally. I stated this before.

Show me these studies.

Wait, what do you mean consumed naturally? You assume that because an animal is being consumed, it's just more healthy? That's retarded. Supplements cut out the natural negatives and give you just the positive, I fail to see why you believe this isn't as, or more, healthy.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
It is essential to being naturally healthy (i.e. recieving all necessary nutrients through the consumption of organic substances rather than artificial supplements, which many vegetarians require to maintatin a healthy diet).

It's not necessary to be healthy, so stop suggesting it is.

-AC

anywho I'm tired of this, I've got a lab protocol to write up

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Some vegetarians will not consume anything that is a product of animals

Those are vegans.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Ok.

We're also designed to start having sex at 12 or so, but we don't. Either way, it's not the point.

Okay, what's your point now... are we getting into ethics?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're the one with the "negatives about meat", e.g. your link. If you had kept it merely at "meat isn't essential" and the debate hadn't moved I wouldn't be replying as I agreed that people can live without meat.

Meat isn't entirely compatible with our digestive systems, it's known. That was my point, it was a side issue, I wasn't shifting the debate.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
You replied to the wrong part with the "Doesn't make my point pointless"

Talk about B.S. and being utterly lead by your own subjective views... A TRUE balanced diet contains meat, if eating meat was truly bad for humans, then evolution wouldn't have designed us to do so.

What do you mean a true balanced diet? A true balanced diet is any diet that is balanced. Vegetarian diets being healthiest.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Then technially the debate did change from just "is meat essential as it changed from the original "Horse as food" bit.

The debate hasn't dramatically or slyly shifted though has it? Not sure what you meant by that.

My core argument is still meat not being essential. Not against you, particularly.

-AC

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, what's your point now... are we getting into ethics?

We aren't getting into anything.

Here is my point: meat isn't essential.

You keep tacking stuff onto that, despite agreeing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Show me these studies.

Wait, what do you mean consumed naturally? You assume that because an animal is being consumed, it's just more healthy? That's retarded. Supplements cut out the natural negatives and give you just the positive, I fail to see why you believe this isn't as, or more, healthy.

-AC

They're called Textbooks. Buy them if you have such a desire to prove your point on an online forum. Physical Anthropology 10th edition by Lynn Kilgore. Biology 7th Edition by Campbell and Reece.

Concerning Vitamin Supplements vs Food:

1. The dietary supplement industry is largely unregulated. Due to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate ingredients and claims made on dietary supplements has been greatly restricted. In other words, you never quite know what you're actually getting!

2. There are many beneficial food components that are difficult to "package" into a pill. One such food component is fiber.

3. Researchers have not yet identified all the biologically active components in food. Believe it or not there are hundreds if not thousands of various substances in foods, such as phytochemicals, that are advantageous. Therefore, you can never get the full benefit of "good food" into a pill!

4. Removing an active substance from food and successfully packaging it into a pill assumes that we know and fully understand the intricacies of that substance's properties - such as ideal concentrations, bioavailability under different circumstances, nutrient interactions with other compounds and medicines, chemical properties, and biological effects of these substances in vivo (in the body). Unfortunately, as of yet, we don't know all these things!

5. Extracts of substances from foods and "pill forms" are often different from the forms that occur naturally in foods, and we often don't know the effects that this may functionally play. In addition, active substances in foods naturally occur in a complex matrix of other nutrients and substances, and removing them from this natural environment may affect their function in ways that we don't fully understand.

6. Our bodies function in a delicate balance, with one action or nutrient often causing consequences in other areas. For example, excesses of one nutrient can affect the bioavailability and/or function of another nutrient or action. As stated by the ADA's position statement on Food Fortification and Dietary Supplements, "Consuming a wide variety of foods in moderate amounts reduces the risk of inadequate and excessive intakes."

Source: http://www.myfooddiary.com/resources/ask_the_expert/vitamin_supplements_vs_food.asp

I really like this statement: "Therefore, you can never get the full benefit of "good food" into a pill!"

"Supplements cut out the natural negatives and give you just the positive" my ass.

That is all

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Those are vegans.

Vegan (noun)- A VEGETARIAN who omits all animal products from the diet. A VEGETARIAN who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Vegan (noun)- a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet.

Yes, that's what they are. That's not all vegetarians.

-AC

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Vegan (noun)- A VEGETARIAN who omits all animal products from the diet. A VEGETARIAN who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

Yes, I just said this, didn't I?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Yes. Those things. But in larger amounts as compared to what you get from eating a comparatively smaller portion of meat. You're also counterproductive in nominating cheese since it has a lot more saturated fat then meat.


Wrong,

It shows that meat isn't essential that's all that's important for this conversation.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Vegan (noun)- A VEGETARIAN who omits all animal products from the diet. A VEGETARIAN who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

They are vegetarians only in the sense that they do not eat meat.

They are correctly labeled as Vegans in that not only do they not eat meat, but they eat nothing that is produced by animals.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
They're called Textbooks. Buy them if you have such a desire to prove your point on an online forum. Physical Anthropology 10th edition by Lynn Kilgore. Biology 7th Edition by Campbell and Reece.

Concerning Vitamin Supplements vs Food:

1. The dietary supplement industry is largely unregulated. Due to the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), the ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate ingredients and claims made on dietary supplements has been greatly restricted. In other words, you never quite know what you're actually getting!

So basically, they're restricted. It doesn't mean people are playing roulette, they wouldn't be sold if they did not. Not to mention there are many stores that cater to supplement distribution through natural means other than animal.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
2. There are many beneficial food components that are difficult to "package" into a pill. One such food component is fiber.

Difficult, not impossible. Hence why people can still get fibre without eating meat.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
3. Researchers have not yet identified all the biologically active components in food. Believe it or not there are hundreds if not thousands of various substances in foods, such as phytochemicals, that are advantageous. Therefore, you can never get the full benefit of "good food" into a pill!

How in the blue hell does this prove that meat is essential to healthy living? We have factually proven it's not. Me, VVD, Robtard, Soleran. What about fact do you not understand?

Originally posted by AngryManatee
4. Removing an active substance from food and successfully packaging it into a pill assumes that we know and fully understand the intricacies of that substance's properties - such as ideal concentrations, bioavailability under different circumstances, nutrient interactions with other compounds and medicines, chemical properties, and biological effects of these substances in vivo (in the body). Unfortunately, as of yet, we don't know all these things!

So what? We're not discussing the ins and outs of supplements, we're discussing meat being essential, which it isn't, because you can get the goodness provided in meat, with supplements.

No need for "We don't know!", what we do know is that meat isn't essential, FACT.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
5. Extracts of substances from foods and "pill forms" are often different from the forms that occur naturally in foods, and we often don't know the effects that this may functionally play. In addition, active substances in foods naturally occur in a complex matrix of other nutrients and substances, and removing them from this natural environment may affect their function in ways that we don't fully understand.

But what we DO understand is that supplements, as proven by vegans and vegetarians alike, are a substitute for the goodness contained in meat, making meat a non-essential source of food.

Follow the breadcrumbs.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
6. Our bodies function in a delicate balance, with one action or nutrient often causing consequences in other areas. For example, excesses of one nutrient can affect the bioavailability and/or function of another nutrient or action. As stated by the ADA's position statement on Food Fortification and Dietary Supplements, "Consuming a wide variety of foods in moderate amounts reduces the risk of inadequate and excessive intakes."

WHO THE HELL is discussing excess of nutrients? We're talking about meat not being essential and how it's factually possible to live very healthily without meat.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Source: http://www.myfooddiary.com/resources/ask_the_expert/vitamin_supplements_vs_food.asp

I really like this statement: "Therefore, you can never get the full benefit of "good food" into a pill!"

"Supplements cut out the natural negatives and give you just the positive" my ass.

That is all

That's like saying you can never get the benefit of a full dinner out of a pill. You're not living on pills, you use them in conjunction with a proper vegetarian diet to gain supplements in meat, rendering meat non-essential.

You complete morong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Meat isn't entirely compatible with our digestive systems, it's known. That was my point, it was a side issue, I wasn't shifting the debate.

What do you mean a true balanced diet? A true balanced diet is any diet that is balanced. Vegetarian diets being healthiest.

The debate hasn't dramatically or slyly shifted though has it? Not sure what you meant by that.

My core argument is still meat not being essential. Not against you, particularly.

-AC

If it isn't compatible than by nature we're not supposed to eat meat... One thing that all animals have in common, you can tell what they're designed to eat by the structure of their mouths and digestive tract. Humans have teeth specifically designed to cut meat and our gastrointestinal is designed to breakdown, process and absorb nutrients from meat.

Where do you get your info that "vegetarians are healthiest" as fact? Please see above about physiology.

I am not arguing with your core argument; people can live on many varied diets that doesn't mean they're all healthy or they should do so though.

Originally posted by Robtard


I am not arguing with your core argument; people can live on many varied diets that doesn't mean it's healthy or they should though.

Seeing as how we're officially on a new topic now...

Neither do those biological features prove that a meat-based diet is healthier (or that we should eat it).

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
We aren't getting into anything.

Here is my point: meat isn't essential.

You keep tacking stuff onto that, despite agreeing.

I agree and there's nothing left to debate between the two of us.

edit - guess I was wrong...

Honestly, I wish no animal had to die for food

But until we figure out a way to make cheeseburgers spawn out of thin air, we must sadly make sacrfices

However, I would never EVER eat a dog, cat or horse

I'll stick to Cow, Chicken and Duck thank you

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
We aren't getting into anything.

Here is my point: meat isn't essential.

You keep tacking stuff onto that, despite agreeing.

But its sure as hell tasty

free advice: if you live in mexico or the phillipines, keep a CLOSE eye on your dog.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Seeing as how we're officially on a new topic now...

Neither do those biological features prove that a meat-based diet is healthier (or that we should eat it).


Topics change/progress; don't kill yourself over it...

Who said anything about a "meat-based" diet? I said meat isn't bad for you (as part of your diet); not, "eating mostly meat is better".

Well, if we are designed to eat meat than why should it be "healthier" to not eat meat? Can you tell me the reason why we have those biological factors if we "shouldn't" eat meat?

A dog is a carnivore, but it can survive on a non-meat heavy omnivorous diet... Does that mean you should feed your dog food with very little meat or it's better to? No.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who said anything about a "meat-based" diet? I said meat isn't bad for you (as part of your diet); not, "eating mostly meat is better".

Well, if we are designed to eat meat than why should it be "healthier" to not eat meat? Can you tell me the reason why we have those biological factors if we "shouldn't" eat meat?


Yes, that's exactly my stance. Neither side is proving anything, so it's a pointless endeavour.

To point out biological capability doesn't furnish the concept with any degree of merit. We are able to eat meat- that doesn't mean we should (or shouldn't).

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, that's exactly my stance. Neither side is proving anything, so it's a pointless endeavour.

To point out biological capability doesn't furnish the concept with any degree of merit. We are able to eat meat- that doesn't mean we should (or shouldn't).

Then we have nothing to debate over.

More correctly; "We are designed to eat meat" not merely "able"; as we are technically able to eat shit and a variety of poisonous substances but we certainly shouldn't do so.

Just a question... In your view; why do you think we have those certain specific biological factors though?

Originally posted by Robtard
A dog is a carnivore, but it can survive on a non-meat heavy omnivorous diet... Does that mean you should feed your dog food with very little meat or it's better to? No.


Why would you use a dog as a basis for discussion on meat eating and diet I would assume of humans?

Originally posted by Robtard
Then we have nothing to debate over.

More correctly; "We are designed to eat meat" not merely "able"; as we are technically able to eat shit and a variety of poisonous substances but we certainly shouldn't do so.

Just a question... Why do you think we have those certain specific biological factors though?


So, we return to another point.

We are designed to have sex from age 10-14. Why?

10 to 14? really?

Originally posted by Soleran
Why would you use a dog as a basis for discussion on meat eating and diet I would assume of humans?

The point of that was on the "Healthier to NOT eat meat"; which there is no basis for.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
10 to 14? really?

Biologically, yes.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So, we return to another point.

We are designed to have sex from age 10-14. Why?

That is typically the age range the human body develops the capability to reproduce, not sure how to answer the "why" part; it simply is "our" biological makeup. Though waiting until the female is older is safer for childbirth as wider hips and a stronger body are beneficial.

Care to answer my question?

Originally posted by Robtard
That is typically the age range the human body develops the capability to reproduce, not sure how to answer the "why" part; it is simply how "our" biological makeup. Though waiting until the female is older is safer for childbirth as wider hips and a stronger body are beneficial.

Care to answer my question?

Well, it's the same answer, isn't it?

It's just the way it is. It's not proof that meat-eating is beneficial- it is just a capability that we have. In many human societies, meat is a necessity of diet, due to food availability.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well, it's the same answer, isn't it?

It's just the way it is. It's not proof that meat-eating is beneficial- it is just a capability that we have. In many human societies, meat is a necessity of diet.

No, it's not.

If we weren't supposed to eat meat, ie not "benificial"; then we would differ greatly biologically speaking.

As far as your "sex" question, we can have sex and we can reproduce much earlier than is commonly done, that has to do with ethics though and sex is more than just biological in humans, emotions come into play. And as your question relates to mine; the reason we do have sex and reproduce is because we are biologically designed too.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, it's not.

If we weren't supposed to eat meat; then we would differ greatly biologically speaking.


Who is saying we aren't supposed to eat meat? Jesus Christ, do you like the company or something?

Allow the debate to end. Everything has to have something additional tacked on.

Originally posted by Robtard

As far as your "sex" question, we can have sex and we can reproduce much earlier than is commonly done, that has to do with ethics though. And as your question relates to mine; the reason we do have sex and reproduce is because we are biologically designed too

No, the point is that capability doesn't imply necessity.

(That is the point, I am making it).

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Who is saying we aren't supposed to eat meat? Jesus Christ, do you like the company or something?

Allow the debate to end. Everything has to have something additional tacked on.



No, the point is that capability doesn't imply necessity.

(That is the point, I am making it).

Flattering oneself...

"capability doesn't imply necessity" Correct, as we have already covered that people can survive on a variety of diets and I was not arguing your/that point.

I preferred the pre-edit wording.

Slightly more evocative.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point of that was on the "Healthier to NOT eat meat"; which there is no basis for.


Don't use a dog which has a signifcantly different digestive system and look to make any sort of reasonable comparison to humans and meat consumption.

More importantly, the phrase "healthier" is to broad of a subject to discuss in regards to this topic speciafically of meat being essential to us.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I preferred the pre-edit wording.

Slightly more evocative.

Again, flattering yourself; I do not debate for emotional responses from people. I merely edited; maybe you do this yourself?

Originally posted by Robtard
Flattering oneself...

"capability doesn't imply necessity" Correct, as we have already covered that people can survive on a variety of diets and I was not arguing your/that point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, flattering yourself; I do not debate for emotional responses from people. I merely edited; maybe you do this yourself?

No, you hang up.

Ok, I think there are no more points of contention, then.

As things stand.

Originally posted by Soleran
Don't use a dog which has a signifcantly different digestive system and look to make any sort of reasonable comparison to humans and meat consumption.

More importantly, the phrase "healthier" is to broad of a subject to discuss in regards to this topic speciafically of meat being essential to us.

Okay, since you said not to; I certainly won't... I used a dog as a biological example of how certain features relate to what certain animals eat; I could have used a bear, horse or chimpanzee with the same conclusion.

Meat being essential has already been coverd incase you missed it...

Originally posted by Robtard
Okay, since you said not to; I certainly won't... I used a dog as a biological example of how certain features relate to what certain animals eat; I could have used a bear, horse or chimpanzee with the same conclusion.

Using another animal and looking to equate them to human's biological needs is poop.

No need to attempt clever in that part of your discussion.

Tell me what about meat consumption is "healthier" even not even "essential" and you might have a basis for your discussion.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, you hang up.

Ok, I think there are no more points of contention, then.

As things stand.

"You had me at hello."

Originally posted by Soleran
Using another animal and looking to equate them to human's biological needs is poop.

No need to attempt clever in that part of your discussion.

Tell me what about meat consumption is "healthier" even not even "essential" and you might have a basis for your discussion.

Huh... Dogs and humans (and every other animal) both have certain biological factors/differences that relate to which types of foods they are designed to eat. Correct?

Awww, is someone sore?

Not just a meat diet, (proper/healthy) meat included as part of your diet is good for you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Huh... Dogs and humans (and every other animal) both have certain biological factors/differences that relate to which types of foods they are designed to eat. Correct?

Awww, is someone sore?

Not just a meat diet, (proper/healthy) meat included as part of your diet is good for you.

Pointless question as this relates to meat being essential to humans, it's not.

Not sore, just looking to keep you from making assinine associations and assumptions.

State your case, logically with facts and not with I feel, I see, I think but with facts and we can go from there. I have yet to see you do that, amaze me with your wizardry of knowledge with diet/nutrition and health and how meat fits into all that and is "essential" to "health" as you keep saying.

Originally posted by Soleran
Pointless question as this relates to meat being essential to humans, it's not.

Not sore, just looking to keep you from making assinine associations and assumptions.

State your case, logically with facts and not with I feel, I see, I think but with facts and we can go from there. I have yet to see you do that, amaze me with your wizardry of knowledge with diet/nutrition and health and how meat fits into all that and is "essential" to "health" as you keep saying.

Listen, if you don't or can't answer the question: that's fine, but why do you keep going on about that, "we" weren't/aren't debating "Essential to eat meat" anymore, as REPEATEDLY noted, "We've discussed that." and I do not think it is essential (as in survival) as non-meat eaters do exist... I have also repeatedly said so (see page 4 and beyond), so why you're agruing on something we both agree on is beyond me.

How sweet, but no need to do me any favors, worry about yourself as you're having trouble understanding that we've moved past "Essential to eat meat".

See above (and previous) post as we've moved past "essential to eat meat" and using biology is logical.

U can eat horse over here.
Salami

lol

They are having that nationwide pet food recall. Maybe they had too many horse parts in them.

edit.

Wrong thread.

have you guys taken a step back and looked at what you are arguing over?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
have you guys taken a step back and looked at what you are arguing over?

Why do you enlighten us; as a favor?

i just think you guys are getting all worked up over a silly topic. debating it is understandable, i am all for that, but actually getting mad about it. what the hell? ....just forget i said anything, i am probably out of line.....

heres my ten cents: dogs, cats, and horses being sold as food....there are a lot of stray dogs and cats out there, and when horses get old they put them down. SO......i think that these strays and old horses should be canned up and sent to third world countries as food. but i dont think that they should be sold in the states, or anywhere else where food is plentily vaailable.

It's up to them or anyone how they wish to debate, let's not allow THAT to become topic for discussion here.

Stick to "food", as you have done.

I find it odd how people feel human meat is the one meat that should never be thought of as food. I consider that odd.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i just think you guys are getting all worked up over a silly topic. debating it is understandable, i am all for that, but actually getting mad about it. what the hell? ....just forget i said anything, i am probably out of line.....

heres my ten cents: dogs, cats, and horses being sold as food....there are a lot of stray dogs and cats out there, and when horses get old they put them down. SO......i think that these strays and old horses should be canned up and sent to third world countries as food. but i dont think that they should be sold in the states, or anywhere else where food is plentily vaailable.

I can't speak for others, but I am not getting "worked up" and I am certainly not mad; it's called debate.

You want to send third world countries meats we don't readily eat ourselves? How "kind" of you... America and other countries destroy millions and millions of pounds of produce and live stock every single year in order to keep the market price at a certain level, if anything; it'd be better for those countries to ship that food to the 3rd world (my opinion).