|
 sonar
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 216
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
 Paradox of Vegetarianism 
#11452597 - 11/14/09 08:37 AM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Does anyone else think that there is a paradox of vegetarianism?
I know it's probably more healthier, but at the same time I don't think it can beat lean/white meat in moderation. I can't help but be carniverous. It's like if you have a pint or a spliff and then think 'oh man I really want to have some grilled chicken and mushrooms topped with cheese with chips on the side', but I do try to eat less meat and eat healthier when not in them kind of states.
Well I learnt something today, it seems that the Kingdom of Fungi shares more genetics with the animal world then a vegetable, namely, it seems to be least-complex but still valid biological organism. Another is yeast in bread, which is also a living breathing organism, and then theres bacteria in yoghurt etc...
And it got me thinking - Are vegetarians unknowingly eating life forms? To what extent does a life of a least-complex organism qualify as a 'living being'?. We could take the extreme that plants for that matter are living, albeit not very conscious lifeforms and that eating a carrot is no different to eating an egg. We seem to think that eating dogs is more taboo then eating chickens. Why my girlfriend asks I don't become a vegetarian? Well there is the fact that I find it tasty and also want some nutrition. I know I could be vegetarian-like without resorting to meat but at least I try and go out of my way to buy free-range / organic if I can afford. I'm eating less meat, but can't understand in my own morality why I should be against eating meat. I place the level of importance of a worm equal to that with a human for instance. We can give living things (plants, animals etc) a value such as how conscious and sentient they seem to be but it doesn't take away from what I deem to be a well-intentioned paradox of choosing vegetenariasm as an ethical lifestyle.
To my knowledge, there isn't an objective model value for categorising importancy of life. A vegetarian may argue that we should be treat animals like we want to be treated and not make them suffer, but does not this same principle apply for even lesser organisms such as insects, bacteria, viruses?
If aliens come and decided that humans were a tasty delicacy, should we just accept that this is the 'circle of life'. What makes us, other then being relatively advanced beings, worthy of an argument to the contrary?
Perhaps categories like vegetarianism and veganism are outdated philosophies. Yes there are definately rational arguments for them in that it does seem to lower relative suffering on the planet, but how can we be so arrogant in our own morality to assume that abstaining from eating meat is the 'good' thing to do when morality.
I argue that morality is nothing more then an accumulation of cerebral-masturbatory subjective judgements with no concrete existance in the objective world and is just a function for social evolution. Our higher-order intelligence skews our ability to reason by having anthropomorphic biases of how the universe 'ought' to be (religion, morality, 'norms'). The paradox it seems is rooted in our tendeancy to believe we are the arbiters of our own morality, but we are just mere passengers of determinants and our genes.
|
 MisterMuscaria
 
Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 27,646
Loc: 
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: sonar]
#11452604 - 11/14/09 08:39 AM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I just dont enjoy the taste/texture of meat. Nothing to do with morals for me.
|
snoot
look alive ∞
Registered: 01/30/05
Posts: 9,642
Loc: 45º parallel
Last seen: 14 days, 7 hours
|
|
I dont honestly think that there is ANYTHING healthier about being on a diet of purely vegetables. Balance is fundamental, you see it in nature and I see it in my life, we all know vegetables are great for you, but so is meat, so is fish. Its all about balance more so then moderation, moderation is good in moderation. BALANCE is everything.
Vegetarianism is all about philosophy, just as vegan's wont eat a face, vegetarians wont eat any meat. I guess you can argue all you want, but when it comes down to it there's nothing healthier about eating a diet of all vegetables, no matter what way you slice it.
--------------------
∞
I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
- Simone de Beauvoir -
|
legallyhomeless
mooch
Registered: 07/01/05
Posts: 4,051
Loc: EZRA for the Refuge
|
|
I agree. Meat is just nasty. How KFC slaughters millions of baby chickens after mameing them is terrible though.
Plants dont think so they are ok to eat. 
Also viruses and bacteria, even spiders that crawl in your mouth while you are asleep dont count as meat....
do they? 
--------------------
MY TRADE LIST!!!
FULLY AUTOMATIC!! 12-Pot Multi Grow Hydroponic System for Trade.
Download PSX ISOs
|
PoC
Relax
Registered: 03/10/04
Posts: 2,142
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: snoot]
#11453311 - 11/14/09 11:32 AM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
At least here in the US, people eat TOO much meat. Meat is treated cheaply and can be had for every meal of every day without seeming weird. I am not a vegetarian but eat meat very sparingly. Asides from any moral implications about eating an animal, there are other reasons to not eat so much meat (or none at all). Beef cows are a huge source of methane gas in the environment and a lot of them live squalid lives in factory farms. The high demand for meat by Americans also brings about the liberal use of hormones and antibiotics to increase production - something I for one am not in favor of. It also takes exponentially more farmland to raise a cow than to raise a plant. With plants you just need to grow them and that's the last step before eating. With cows you have to grow the plants to feed them prodigious amounts which could feed many people before you can slaughter it and get any food out of it. Growing one field of corn to feed some humans is much more efficient and environmentally sound than growing 10 fields of corn to feed cows and in turn feed the same amount of humans. While we're eating all this meat, there are people in the world who still suffer from hunger. Meat eating also encourages the government subsidization of feed such as corn. Those subsidies lead to the radically low price of corn which undercuts local growers in other parts of the world. In Mexico it is now often so cheap to buy imported corn that the local farmers can no longer afford to grow and sell their own landrace varieties (and make a living).
It seems like in the original post you treat fungi and yeasts as being more alive than plants saying it's an extreme view to say plants are living. There is no validity to that imo. Of course humans eat living things - the only food we can even really eat is made up of mostly organic materials - living things. To me it is all about what one supports by eating different things and what the consequences are. Meat was in the past and should still be considered a luxury food because it is simply not realistic or sustainable to feed every human meat every day. Of course plants, bacteria, fungi, yeasts, and other forms of life are just as alive as an animal - that's an easy point to argue. That doesn't mean the consequences of choosing to eat them are all equal.
And perhaps the worst consequences come from eating fish. Yes, they are great for our health to eat, but overfishing is rampant in every ocean. They kill many many more other forms of sea life than the specific fish they are after with their long and deep driftnets. Fish like tuna are being driven towards extinction because of such practices. There is also a lack of enforcement of international regulations regarding commercial fishing, which means there's a ton of illegal fishing going on in the oceans that no one is stopping. The effect is greater than the extinction of a few species - we are destroying life in the ocean by disrupting the balance of biological diversity by overfishing top predators. This is all asides from the problems with pollution in the ocean such as oil spills, chemical dumping, large plastic trash islands where oceanic currents meet, and plastic that is broken down to the size of plankton infiltrating the water and poisoning fish.
--------------------
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: sonar]
#11453697 - 11/14/09 01:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think what vegetarians do are actually CRUELER.
They eat the unborn children and rip off and feed on the reproductive organs of these poor innocent living organisms.
--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
legallyhomeless
mooch
Registered: 07/01/05
Posts: 4,051
Loc: EZRA for the Refuge
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#11455351 - 11/14/09 05:45 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PatternOfChaos said:
At least here in the US, people eat TOO much meat. Meat is treated cheaply and can be had for every meal of every day without seeming weird. I am not a vegetarian but eat meat very sparingly. Asides from any moral implications about eating an animal, there are other reasons to not eat so much meat (or none at all). Beef cows are a huge source of methane gas in the environment and a lot of them live squalid lives in factory farms. The high demand for meat by Americans also brings about the liberal use of hormones and antibiotics to increase production - something I for one am not in favor of. It also takes exponentially more farmland to raise a cow than to raise a plant. With plants you just need to grow them and that's the last step before eating. With cows you have to grow the plants to feed them prodigious amounts which could feed many people before you can slaughter it and get any food out of it. Growing one field of corn to feed some humans is much more efficient and environmentally sound than growing 10 fields of corn to feed cows and in turn feed the same amount of humans. While we're eating all this meat, there are people in the world who still suffer from hunger. Meat eating also encourages the government subsidization of feed such as corn. Those subsidies lead to the radically low price of corn which undercuts local growers in other parts of the world. In Mexico it is now often so cheap to buy imported corn that the local farmers can no longer afford to grow and sell their own landrace varieties (and make a living).
It seems like in the original post you treat fungi and yeasts as being more alive than plants saying it's an extreme view to say plants are living. There is no validity to that imo. Of course humans eat living things - the only food we can even really eat is made up of mostly organic materials - living things. To me it is all about what one supports by eating different things and what the consequences are. Meat was in the past and should still be considered a luxury food because it is simply not realistic or sustainable to feed every human meat every day. Of course plants, bacteria, fungi, yeasts, and other forms of life are just as alive as an animal - that's an easy point to argue. That doesn't mean the consequences of choosing to eat them are all equal.
And perhaps the worst consequences come from eating fish. Yes, they are great for our health to eat, but overfishing is rampant in every ocean. They kill many many more other forms of sea life than the specific fish they are after with their long and deep driftnets. Fish like tuna are being driven towards extinction because of such practices. There is also a lack of enforcement of international regulations regarding commercial fishing, which means there's a ton of illegal fishing going on in the oceans that no one is stopping. The effect is greater than the extinction of a few species - we are destroying life in the ocean by disrupting the balance of biological diversity by overfishing top predators. This is all asides from the problems with pollution in the ocean such as oil spills, chemical dumping, large plastic trash islands where oceanic currents meet, and plastic that is broken down to the size of plankton infiltrating the water and poisoning fish.
couldnt have said it better myself. your smart!
Quote:
LiquidSmoke said:
I think what vegetarians do are actually CRUELER.
They eat the unborn children and rip off and feed on the reproductive organs of these poor innocent living organisms.
you shouldnt talk
--------------------
MY TRADE LIST!!!
FULLY AUTOMATIC!! 12-Pot Multi Grow Hydroponic System for Trade.
Download PSX ISOs
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days
|
|
Vegetarians basically take plants, and rip off their testicles and eat them.
It's the truth. Plants are living organisms too who take care of their young.
They never asked you to breed them, deform them into various mutants, and then harvest on their children to which they put all their work and nutrients to germinate.
Screw you, veggie fag.
--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
snoot
look alive ∞
Registered: 01/30/05
Posts: 9,642
Loc: 45º parallel
Last seen: 14 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: LiquidSmoke]
#11456482 - 11/14/09 09:07 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
LiquidSmoke said:
Vegetarians basically take plants, and rip off their testicles and eat them.
It's the truth. Plants are living organisms too who take care of their young.
They never asked you to breed them, deform them into various mutants, and then harvest on their children to which they put all their work and nutrients to germinate.
Screw you, veggie fag.
have you ever seen the research supporting that? its utterly amazing how plants can not only distinguish other's from there own offspring but they support the latter.
--------------------
∞
I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
- Simone de Beauvoir -
|
snoot
look alive ∞
Registered: 01/30/05
Posts: 9,642
Loc: 45º parallel
Last seen: 14 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: snoot]
#11456508 - 11/14/09 09:13 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Plants Know Their Relatives — And Like Them!
By Hadley Leggett October 14, 2009 | 6:01 pm | Categories: Agriculture, Biology
Unlike many human brothers and sisters, plant siblings appear to do their best to get along, sharing resources and avoiding competition.
In a study of more than 3,000 mustard seedlings, scientists discovered that the young plants recognize their siblings — other plants grown from the seeds of the same momma plant — using chemical cues given off during root growth. And it turns out mustard plants won’t compete with their brethren the way they will with strangers: Instead of rapidly growing roots to suck up as much water and minerals as possible, plants who sensed nearby siblings developed a shallower root system and more intertwined leaves.
“It’s possible that when kin are grown together, they may balance their nutrient uptake and not be greedy,” plant biologist Harsh Bais of the University of Delaware said in a press release. The work will be published in an upcoming issue of Communicative and Integrative Biology.
Two years ago, co-author Susan Dudley of McMaster University in Canada observed a similar pattern in the sea rocket, a common seashore plant that also appears to favor its siblings. But the initial studies of kin recognition have been criticized for failing to control for complicating factors, such as resource depletion caused by competition between the unrelated plants. And until now, the researchers didn’t know how plants managed to identify their kin.
As seedlings grow, their developing root system gives off a variety of chemical signals, and the researchers guessed that these secretions might play a role in sibling recognition. To test their theory, the scientists grew wild Arabidopsis thaliana in a sterile liquid containing root extracts from sibling plants, unrelated plants or their own roots. Because each plant was grown in a highly controlled setup, the researchers could be sure any changes in growth were due to differences in the root extracts.
As shown in the time-lapse videos below, the seedlings exposed to root secretions from unrelated plants grew significantly longer and more elaborate root systems than those grown in secretions from their siblings. The top video shows unrelated plants, while the bottom one shows siblings.
However, when the scientists blocked root secretions using a chemical called sodium orthovanadate, the differences disappeared, suggesting that the sibling identification system indeed depends on chemicals released by growing roots.
The researchers say their results may have significant implications for farming and agriculture. Although no one knows for sure how sibling recognition would affect crops grown in large monocultures, some researchers think that decreased competition among plants from identical seeds may make monocultures more susceptible to insects and disease.
However, Bais says that the effect of growing a plant with its siblings is likely to be species-dependent, as initial studies have been contradictory. “There is a possibility that the explanation of the trade-offs is not that simple,” he wrote in an e-mail. “We have found that plants could resist pathogens better when grown with siblings compared to strangers, so I would take this with caution and not stretch it to all the plant species.”
Regardless of how sibling recognition affects agriculture, it may be an important consideration for the home gardener.
“Often we’ll put plants in the ground next to each other and when they don’t do well, we blame the local garden center where we bought them or we attribute their failure to a pathogen,” Bais said in the press release. “But maybe there’s more to it than that.”
--------------------
∞
I am incapable of conceiving infinity, and yet I do not accept finity.
- Simone de Beauvoir -
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: snoot]
#11456779 - 11/14/09 10:00 PM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
hahahha awsome article
all this animal rights crap is BS for veggetarians to try to separate themselves from.
Shit if someone ate my loving little spider plant, i'd cry.
--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
sonar
Stranger
Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 216
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: PoC]
#11458636 - 11/15/09 08:09 AM (14 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PatternOfChaos said:
At least here in the US, people eat TOO much meat. Meat is treated cheaply and can be had for every meal of every day without seeming weird. I am not a vegetarian but eat meat very sparingly. Asides from any moral implications about eating an animal, there are other reasons to not eat so much meat (or none at all). Beef cows are a huge source of methane gas in the environment and a lot of them live squalid lives in factory farms. The high demand for meat by Americans also brings about the liberal use of hormones and antibiotics to increase production - something I for one am not in favor of.
1) Methane in cows - yes, methane is a lot more 'potent' then c02, but they already have methane-capturing technology which utilises methane to create renewable energy and offsetting emissions. 2500 cows can produce electricity for 200 homes each year. In addition, 'Beef farmers can "breathe easier" thanks to University of Alberta researchers who have developed a formula to reduce methane gas in cattle' http://www.scientistlive.com/European-Science-News/Biotechnology/Cutting_cattle_methane/22300/
Yes, I totally agree with you on the point about anti-biotics and hormones and cruel treatment of animals which serve to subsidize corporations such as KFC and McDonalds. However meat-alternatives such as Soya are even more dangerous to the body (phyto-oestrogens, contraceptives, allergies) production of crops such as corn and soya also contribute to carbon emissions. Yes they are used for the meat industry but also for biofuel. Vegetables are purchased during and out of season so a person is still damaging the ozone layer buying peas from Kenya, rice from China which can rack up more carbon miles then locally produced 'meat'.
In any case, I'm quite skeptical about anthropogenic global warming. I don't own a car nor am I a NIMBY but I think the REAL crisis of our planet has more to do with resource scarcity as a result of exploitation by governments and lobbying industries such as oil, defense, tobacco, alcohol and other wealth stealers which are symptoms of a deeply flawed hierarchy of greedy powers. The new 'Climate Change' lobbies use thinly veiled and flawed methodologies to introduce concepts such as 'carbon credits' in order to profit from them when oil is no longer in vogue. In essence, the strategy for mass adoption is to shift the blame onto the consumer for natural oscillations in temperature and imposing 'green capitalism' which does little to prevent resource scarcity.
Having said that, I'd prefer we don't live in a world reliant on finite and outdated technologies. The destruction of our planet is a byproduct of capitalism which seeks to maintain perpetual growth despite limited resources. I welcome the adoption of renewable and green energy not because of 'global warming' but because it would have the potential to create abundancy and limit pollution (pollution is the silent killer and is responsible for respiratory illnesses and loss of biodiversity. This deposits onto ice and snow preventing them from reflecting light, temperature is secondary to this).
I can't endorse anthropogenic global warming not because I have a vested interest, but because it is pseudo-scientific. No matter what we do as a species we are subject to the laws of the universe, the sun is the biggest culprit here.
Quote:
PatternOfChaos said:
It also takes exponentially more farmland to raise a cow than to raise a plant. With plants you just need to grow them and that's the last step before eating. With cows you have to grow the plants to feed them prodigious amounts which could feed many people before you can slaughter it and get any food out of it. Growing one field of corn to feed some humans is much more efficient and environmentally sound than growing 10 fields of corn to feed cows and in turn feed the same amount of humans. While we're eating all this meat, there are people in the world who still suffer from hunger. Meat eating also encourages the government subsidization of feed such as corn. Those subsidies lead to the radically low price of corn which undercuts local growers in other parts of the world. In Mexico it is now often so cheap to buy imported corn that the local farmers can no longer afford to grow and sell their own landrace varieties (and make a living).
Valid points to make, but the Mexicans would be worst off if meat wasn't in high demand (supply and demand). Unfortunately this is a fault of capitalism and can't be helped. As in the case for third world countries, it is absolutely vital that they raise livestock. I wouldn't argue this based on hectare estimates as this is arbitrary, the problem is lack of resources and technology which could maximise food production. Fact is, barring the barren landscapes. Africa is a resource gold mine and has been exploited for countless centuries by foreign countries - The only thing stopping Africa is lack of access to agricultural technologies and a debt. Hypothetically if the world where to enter some giant crisis, population dense countries like UK and Japan will fall to their knees and Africa would emerge as the dominant continent. Also, you would need animals to fertilize the ground, the stomping of grounds by cattle promote crop growth.
The problem of hunger is largely a result of the monetary system, and of affluent countries consuming and draining of other countries resources.
Quote:
PatternOfChaos said:
It seems like in the original post you treat fungi and yeasts as being more alive than plants saying it's an extreme view to say plants are living. There is no validity to that imo. Of course humans eat living things - the only food we can even really eat is made up of mostly organic materials - living things. To me it is all about what one supports by eating different things and what the consequences are. Meat was in the past and should still be considered a luxury food because it is simply not realistic or sustainable to feed every human meat every day. Of course plants, bacteria, fungi, yeasts, and other forms of life are just as alive as an animal - that's an easy point to argue. That doesn't mean the consequences of choosing to eat them are all equal.
And perhaps the worst consequences come from eating fish. Yes, they are great for our health to eat, but overfishing is rampant in every ocean. They kill many many more other forms of sea life than the specific fish they are after with their long and deep driftnets. Fish like tuna are being driven towards extinction because of such practices. There is also a lack of enforcement of international regulations regarding commercial fishing, which means there's a ton of illegal fishing going on in the oceans that no one is stopping. The effect is greater than the extinction of a few species - we are destroying life in the ocean by disrupting the balance of biological diversity by overfishing top predators. This is all asides from the problems with pollution in the ocean such as oil spills, chemical dumping, large plastic trash islands where oceanic currents meet, and plastic that is broken down to the size of plankton infiltrating the water and poisoning fish.
I won't argue against those points as I agree with them, but the axe to grind is with the corporations and less so the consumers. Yes consumers certainly are a problem, but if I'm out in the city and find myself feeling hungry, a visit to a conveniance store I find crisps, chocolate and booze and no fruits and their is not a health cafe in miles. Or what if the only brand of tuna on the shelf is one that is unsustainable? Corporations need to take seriously ethical consumerism, the organic industry which is a noble venture has been taken over by profiteerists.
|
WildRover
On and off again
Registered: 09/11/06
Posts: 115
Loc: SE USA
Last seen: 11 years, 11 months
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: sonar]
#11485248 - 11/19/09 12:36 PM (14 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
And it got me thinking - Are vegetarians unknowingly eating life forms? To what extent does a life of a least-complex organism qualify as a 'living being'?.
Yes, we all eat some type of life form. Common sense is often the best answer. Is there a line that individual omnivores draw with regards to what they'll eat? I would say most have one. Would you eat a cat? What about YOUR cat? Would you kick it? How about a mushroom? I say that we eat meat because we've always eaten meat. There is nothing morally defensible about promoting cruelty to anything.
|
Galvie_Flu
Registered: 06/30/02
Posts: 6,632
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: WildRover]
#11486182 - 11/19/09 03:14 PM (14 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
ofcourse vegetarians and vegans do eat small life forms all the time. There are tiny bugs on most vegetables that get eaten, and boxed and canned food from factories do contain some critters as well.
|
benitoamanito
rad
Registered: 06/18/05
Posts: 827
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: sonar]
#11486900 - 11/19/09 04:47 PM (14 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
ya man no shit.. every vegetarian or vegan is gonna atkleast BREATHe in some living particle.. its part of life... the main thing is just not consuming flesh or animal products, due to animal cruelty.. I presonally just dont like the effects of meat on my body.. i might get more muscle definition, but i get angrier easier, and more tense, and when i get angry with meat in my diety, i tend to act it out more agressively.. Even if theres bugs that unknowingly die in the process of food, its just the fact (to me atleast) of not consuming the actualy flesh of animals.. and overall, for me, its about just taking less portion in life (if that makes sense) i just would rather live a lighter life than be weighed down by meat.. plus, i ate red meat my whole life, its known to cause internal parasites... something id rather stay away from.. :-)
|
benitoamanito
rad
Registered: 06/18/05
Posts: 827
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
|
oh and on the note of life forms eating life forms.. most living things or dead things that a vegetarian or vegan would consume would be too small to relaly ever see.. or invisible o_O
|
PoC
Relax
Registered: 03/10/04
Posts: 2,142
|
|
...ALL people eat living and dead things. Vegetarian or vegan does NOT mean they don't eat anything that is or was previously alive.
--------------------
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: PoC]
#11488513 - 11/19/09 08:00 PM (14 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
oh yeah?
well i eat nothing but MOLTEN LAVA
which means i'm eating nothing except the new.
--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
demiu5
humans, lol
Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: sonar]
#11488535 - 11/19/09 08:02 PM (14 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
the paradox of vegetarianism (for a good portion of them) is that plants are living beings that feel pain too
--------------------
channel your inner Larry David
|
LiquidSmoke
My title's cooler than yours DBK
Registered: 09/04/01
Posts: 25,335
Loc: S.A.G.G.Y.B.A.L.L.S.
Last seen: 9 months, 11 days
|
Re: Paradox of Vegetarianism [Re: demiu5]
#11489563 - 11/19/09 10:22 PM (14 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
if they also feel the need to organically compensate and repair themselves when damaged, i'm sure they must sense damage in a dire light.
--------------------
"Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz, doin' coke, drinkin' beers. Drinkin' beers beers beers, rollin' fatties, smokin' blunts. Who smokes tha blunts? We smoke the blunts" - Jay and Silent Bob strike Back
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Chaos_ultt
Penguin
PDU
MisterMuscaria
Silversoul
Edame