Should dogs, cats, or horses be sold as food

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