is killing animals alright?{vegetarianism/buddhism etc}

Originally posted by Zebedee
So an eskimo in arctic conditions is going to get his calorific intake and protein requirements from non meat foodstuffs? Well O.K. then. White fat in these conditions is essential.

So the guy who lacks the enzyme for metabolising protein from pulses and lives in a third world country is going to find an amino acid/protein supplement.

Let's look at the third world shall we. A poor athlete in a third world country sure can spend 100 dollars on supplementary protein each week.

I wonder why I don't "debate" here?

looking at the threads nothing has changed since I decided to avoid this place. It anything it's got even sadder. Ho, hum I guess i'm a hypocrite for even posting this. According to Cyber tuff guy i'm not the only one.

True that not everyone can choose to be a vegetarian...that privilege is reserved to those with the resources to accomplish it. Am I grateful to be able to NOT chose to be a vegetarian?...Yes! times 100000!!!

Originally posted by Zebedee
That's why this forum is so funny. When obviously wrong people like you say they are not. You said a vegetarian diet was always able to provide the needed nutrition. Paraphrased because your post bored me.
When it's explained to you that a vegetarian diet is both impractical and dangerous in a given situation you can't admit your wrong. You do realise that the human metablism in cold conditions keeps us warm? You do realise lots of calories are burnt, you do realise that even if supplementation was possible it would be grazing all day using vegetaian food stuffs. No of course you don't.

You do realise for some people barring injections they can only absorb iron in the form it resides in meat due to lacking specific enzymes.

No, no you don't. Enzyme deficiency swings both ways, some vegetarian have to be vegetarian because they cannot digest elements of an animal based food stuffs.

Anyway, I've looked, i've laughed. Absolutes are always funny and you are a blanket statement master.
Funny stuff.

Absolute statement= Eating meat is required for a good diet.

My reply= denial of absolute statement.

Your reply= dyslexia strewn trolling.

Originally posted by dadudemon
True that not everyone can choose to be a vegetarian...that privilege is reserved to those with the resources to accomplish it. Am I grateful to be able to NOT chose to be a vegetarian?...Yes! times 100000!!!

As am I. I also fish sometimes and have been hunting. I love being top of the food chain.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Absolute statement=Eating meat is required for a good diet.

My reply= denial of absolute statement.

Your reply= dyslexia strewn trolling.

Well, if what you say above is true(The first two items of course 😄 )...then you are right.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Absolute statement= Eating meat is required for a good diet.

My reply= denial of absolute statement.

Your reply= dyslexia strewn trolling.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Then it's always true, isn't it?

(Yes).

You said" always, yes", in a second post making your first post absolute.

You're wrong, get over it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
No, just that I need to speak upon some facts and stuff... 🙂

Ok = okay

🙂 = a smilie

Originally posted by Zebedee
You said always, yes in a second post making your first post absolute.

You're wrong, get over it.

No, I said the denial of the absolute statement is always true.

It's not sometimes true. Cuntarina quoted my denial.

Senility has ruined your once reasonable posts.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, I said the denial of the absolute statement is always true.

It's not sometimes true. Cuntarina quoted my denial.

Senility has ruined your once reasonable posts.

Semantics your meaning was clear. She said sometimes and you said always.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Then it's always true, isn't it?

(Yes).

That's why you're funny.

Originally posted by dadudemon
True that not everyone can choose to be a vegetarian...that privilege is reserved to those with the resources to accomplish it. Am I grateful to be able to NOT chose to be a vegetarian?...Yes! times 100000!!!

Originally posted by Zebedee
As am I. I also fish sometimes and have been hunting. I love being top of the food chain.

You conscious meat-whore.

Why is it that the eagle would spare his own seed the trouble of being eaten alive, yet, the male/female eagle hunts for fish and claws it to death, sometimes, eating it alive.

Bears eat only berries and perhaps some fish, but they can end up killing a human being.

What are really fighting for here?

Originally posted by Zebedee
Semantics your meaning was clear. She said sometimes and you said always.

That's why you're funny.

Learn to read, gramps. You're looking increasingly stupid.

Taste..lol...oh and cooked one at that......let them eat it raw.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
You conscious meat-whore.

Why is it that the eagle would spare his own seed the trouble of being eaten alive, yet, the male/female eagle hunts for fish and claws it to death, sometimes, eating it alive.

Bears eat only berries and perhaps some fish, but they can end up killing a human being.

What are really fighting for here?

Loopy.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Learn to read, gramps. You're looking increasingly stupid.

Not really. Your meaning was clear.

Your forum reputation is everything right? 😉 Can't admit you're wrong in the presence of these mental giants. Big Fish?

Originally posted by Zebedee
Loopy.

EXACTLY, you have to go full circle (loop) on these ppl, you can't leave an open spot.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Learn to read, gramps. You're looking increasingly stupid.

anymore stupid then that big apple head, that's it, i'm going to the frig, going to look for a big fat zebede.

Lets be fair here.

He said "Eating meat is required for a good diet (in some cases)."

As he was denying the absolute statement of V2D.

Then when Czarina said that he is right "in some cases"

He replied that that is sufficient to counter the absolute statement of V2D.

So, in conclusion, what he was said was absolutely sensible, logical, grammatically correct and moral.

And yes, I suppose it was harder to follow than some other replies, but it was still correct.

We should really start applying logic to what we read, shouldn't we?

Originally posted by Zebedee
Not really. Your meaning was clear.

*random pseudo-trolling*

For that, we need context, of course.

What was the question? Absolute statement- 'Eating meat is required for a good diet.'

Is the absolute statement always not true? Yes.

Unless you would like to continue to purposely ignore the clear logic for the sake of being a troll.

You should be enjoying your retirement.

Additionally, explain what you mean by 'semantics', because it's not even applicable. It's just something you say when you are wrong.

If it were a pure semantic issue, then you are wrong anyway.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets be fair here.

He said "Eating meat is required for a good diet (in some cases)."

As he was denying the absolute statement of V2D.

Then when Czarina said that he is right "in some cases"

He replied that that is sufficient to counter the absolute statement of V2D.

So, in conclusion, what he was said was absolutely sensible, logical, grammatically correct and moral.

And yes, I suppose it was harder to follow than some other replies, but it was still correct.

We should really start applying logic to what we read, shouldn't we?

No he was absolutist. I know your posting because your friend asked you.
I catch on very fast.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Was the phrase 'No it's not' always true?

For that, we need context, of course.

What was the question? Absolute statement- 'Eating meat is required for a good diet.'

Is the absolute statement always not true? Yes.

Unless you would like to continue to purposely ignore the clear logic for the sake of being a troll.

You should be enjoying your retirement.

Additionally, explain what you mean by 'semantics', because it's not even applicable. It's just something you say when you are wrong.

If it were a pure semantic issue, then you are wrong anyway.

"good" is relative. and that statement maybe true {'Eating meat is required for a good diet'}, however, a "best" diet may require no meat at all {Not Eating meat maybe required for a best diet}. What is best? I didn't define it. What is "good"? That wasn't well definded, therefore, we are talking about dots and lines, just perspectives.