Should dogs, cats, or horses be sold as food

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 [some] 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? [If your stance is neutral, i.e. eat meat or don't; both are equal, than ignore it]

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.