Vegetarians please read...

James R said:
Muslim:



I do not believe that all beliefs (particularly beliefs about ethics) are on an equal footing. Do you?



Do you believe that what is legal is always good, and what is illegal is always bad?

Can you imagine such a thing as an unjust law?



I already told you. Evolution needs two things: variation, which is random, and natural selection, which depends on environmental factors. Neither factor is guided or determined in advance. But natural selection cannot be considered random, either, because the environment determines which animals live or die. It is not a toss of a coin.

In other words, evolution has both random elements and elements which are not strictly random. Some animals are better adapted than others to their environments, and they have a better chance of surviving and producing offspring.



It's a simple point, Muslim. Here's the logic:

All humans are animals.
Some animals are human.
Some animals are not human.

You are human AND an animal, Muslim. Because all humans are animals. Your dictionary says so.



There are many different types of living things. I don't mind killing bacteria. Sometimes I do that even without thinking about it. Sometimes I kill small insects, though often I do not. It depends.

All living things are not equal.



No I can't. Can you prove it does feel pain?

What about a cow? If you cut a cow, do you think it feels pain?



If you were willing to wait for an animal to die before eating it, I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. But killing it before it dies of natural causes is a whole different ball game.



Interesting how you think humans are the centre of the universe. If Allah wanted to test humans, why would he make birds sick? Why punish the birds to test humans? Why not make the humans sick? Why not human flu instead of bird flu?



No.

Dictionaries record usages of words, Muslim. The number 1 meaning given is usually the most accurate usage of the word. Further meanings record alternative usages, which may be common as well but not as accurate.



But you would feel obliged to point out why you believe drinking is wrong, wouldn't you? And you could give reasons (such as health reasons and religious reasons) for why drinking is bad. Suppose you tell me drinking is bad, and give me your reasons. Then, unless I can come up with equally valid reasons for why drinking is good, you have the moral high ground.

It is no different with my vegetarianism arguments.



I'm not pretending that. I admit that eating meat may be natural, but that doesn't make it right.



It's strange to kill and eat something you love.

But when you say "I love animals" you mean no more than "I love the taste of animals". Love for most people means more than that, Muslim.



Humans never lived in the sea. The ancient ancestors of humans lived in the sea. See the difference?



Do you mean the last ice age? The most recent ice age ended about 13000 years ago, from memory.



Humans didn't exist before a few hundred thousand years ago. Before that, certain apes existed, some of which evolved into modern humans.



Again, from memory, roughly 3 billion years ago.



I have no problem with part of this. The first modern human being was probably born in Africa, perhaps 150,000 years ago. It would have been born to a member of a very slightly different species, such as Homo erectus. Dividing lines between species are, of course, very very fuzzy.

As for Adam and Eve, do you think their names would have been passed down for 150,000 years, give or take 1500 or so?



Yes, if we go back 150,000 years or more.



OK, I agree with you. I believe in part evolution now.
 
river-wind:
Because the sensation of 'pain' is generated by nerves, communicated to the brain via the spinal cord, and perceived by the brain as pain. That's how pain is defined. How the hell can a plant have a conscious perception of pain if it doesn't have a brain?

Once again, reacting to negative stimuli != pain. Your attempting comparison is childish. It is equivalent to claiming that plants must be afraid of the dark, because they grow towards the sunlight. Your ignorance of neuroscience is baffling. According to you, computers must also feel pain, since they can react to negative stimuli.

But the fact remains that the entire 'plant question' is a fat red herring. It is merely an attempt of meat eaters to deflect attention of their own immoral actions. Ergo. Put the vegetarians on the defensive, instead of justifying your immoral behaviour.
 
Last edited:
But the fact remains that the entire 'plant question' is a fat red herring. It is merely an attempt of meat eaters to deflect attention of their own immoral actions. Ergo.

99.99% of meat eaters are none human.

What level of morality can you expect from a mantis or a dog?
If your only talking about humans then how come you don't accord them the same respect you offer other meat eaters?

Smacks of specieism if you ask me.
If I'd been born a leopard then all the crazy veggies would bend over backwards to make my situation as secure as possible.

Where do we draw the line?
What about none human hominids? Fair enough they may all be extinct but would it really be immoral for neandertal or homo erectus to eat meat?
Or were they not human enough?

Dee Cee
 
DeeCee:
What level of morality can you expect from a mantis or a dog?
How is this relevant? What level of morality can you expect from a severely retarded individual? Not much... I guess it's OK to murder him and eat his flesh.

If your only talking about humans then how come you don't accord them the same respect you offer other meat eaters?
I actually offer them MORE respect, because I recognize that humans can tell the difference between right and wrong.

Also, humans are meat eaters, dumbass. They are omnivores. Humans DON'T need meat to survive. So attempting to compare a human to a tiger (who DOES need meat to survive) is a shoddy analogy. Try again.

Smacks of specieism if you ask me.
Go cry in a corner. It smacks of nothing, except acknowledging that...

1. Humans know the difference between right and wrong.

2. Humans don't need to eat meat to survive.

Fair enough they may all be extinct but would it really be immoral for neandertal or homo erectus to eat meat?
Nope. Because back in those times, those species required meat to survive.
 
How is this relevant?

Oh I'm sorry I thought you said

It is merely an attempt of meat eaters to deflect attention of their own immoral actions.

Sounds to me that you consider meat eating 'immoral'
Perhaps I was wrong...
My apologies.

What level of morality can you expect from a severely retarded individual?

Err I don't expect anything from anybody.
People are free to live their own lives IMHO.
Who am I to judge?

I guess it's OK to murder him and eat his flesh.

If you want. I won't stop you.
Be warned though..
People close to said retard may have different views and could well express them through violence.

I actually offer them MORE respect, because I recognize that humans can tell the difference between right and wrong.

I've never been able to tell the difference myself. I get confused. The Colosseum in Rome seats 100,000 people. Death as entertainment. Sounds wrong to me but the Romans didn't seem to think so.
Shame you weren't around to advise them.
Maybe "right" and "wrong" are cultural artifacts which vary from time to time and place to place.
Or perhaps they're absolutes.
What do you think?

Also, humans are meat eaters, dumbass. They are omnivores. Humans DON'T need meat to survive. So attempting to compare a human to a tiger (who DOES need meat to survive) is a shoddy analogy. Try again.

Yup we're omnivores not herbivores.
BTW what nutrients does a tiger get from meat that it can't get elsewhere?
Y'know Paul McCartney feeds his dogs a vegetarian diet don't you?
As for the comparison well Tigers are animals and so am I. So I think the analogy stands.

Maybe I don't need meat to survive. So what?
If I want it I eat it.
Such is life.

Because back in those times, those species required meat to survive.

Really?
I wasn't aware that the comparative anatomy was so very different.
I'm learning here. Now if you could just give me a source....

IMHO Mountain you seem to have lost sight of the fact that you only have a brain because you can't run fast and your shit at climbing trees. It's evolutions way of giving you a fair chance of survival. Don't be getting all excited about the fact that you have more insight and reasoning powers than other species. Lets see you outswim a great white, now that would impress me.

Get off your high horse and let nature take it's course.

Dee Cee
 
Yo! mountain

Look at this immoral little bastard!

auculture3.jpg


He needs educating don't you think.
A landscape like that looks ideal for rice cultivation.
Perhaps the water could be drained away and vegetrarian cafe be built on the site.
Plenty of room for parking by the look of it.

Believe it or not I found this image on a site devoted to protecting and maintaining this immoral chaps way of life.

I'd tell you the URL but I guess you'd only send them hate mail.

Dee Cee
 
*sighs* Same old bullshit from the same old retards. Strawmen, shit analogies, and incomprehensible blibbering.

"Because back in those times, those species required meat to survive. "

Really?
I wasn't aware that the comparative anatomy was so very different.
I'm learning here. Now if you could just give me a source....
*chuckle* Because we all know that I was talking about the anatomy of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthal, and not about the availability of vegetarian foods during that period of time... But hey, if you can provide evidence that Homo Erectus or Neanderthals could grow crops, and produce vegetarian food in such a quantity that they didn't need meat to survive, then go ahead.

RETARD! Why do I even bother with these idiots?
 
Last edited:
we all know that I was talking about the anatomy of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthal, and not about the availability of vegetarian foods during that period of time...

Humm...

LoL when, exactly were vegetarian foods invented then?

I've an interest in anatomy. I'd love to know what the differences are between the digestion of Homo Sap and Erectus.
Seems odd to me that they could only eat meat.
Still waiting on that source BTW.

As for cultivation.
How do cows get by?
Never seen a chimp plant a field have you?
I guess you must live in a city.
Y'see out in the country plants grow all over the place.
No need to grow the stuff just pull it out of the ground....

I think your just a little too divorced from the food chain.
I blame the supermarkets.

RETARD! Why do I even bother with these idiots?

Sob..
I'm suffering now.
Is that bad?
Dee Cee
 
incomprehensible blibbering.

Eek!

So you present an argument unsupported by any empirical evidence based on your flash in the pan cultural values and then you accuse me of spewing bibber.

Lets face it, your just expressing an opinion.
It has no real value and changes nothing.
Your just playing with your dick ain't you?

Wanker :)
Dee Cee
 
What DeeCee? You don't except MountainHare's opinion as fact and truth! Blasphemy. How dare you actually ask for prove and evidence! Insolent little minx, you should be skinned and made into a nice human-skin jacket for your petulant behaviour.

MountainHare has never been able to backup arguments or provide proof when challenged. Apparently, he thinks that if he sticks his chest out and bellows at people in a nasty manner, that that should be a gesture of his superiority and power. It's kind of his legacy around here. Mostly people just skip over his posts, because of this.

P.S. I just ignore him. He's never had anything important to add, and trying to argue with him is never going to get you anywhere. Sometimes stupid people just refuse to accept anything other than their own opinion. They'd prefer to remain ignorant assholes.
 
river-wind said:
Fiddly definitions ... is pain really the issue? Pain is just a signal that harm is occuring. If you pull up a plant, you're surely harming it, so why talk about pain at all?
 
DeeCee said:
Lets face it, your just expressing an opinion.
It has no real value and changes nothing.

Similarly, you're entitled to your subjective assessments; afterall that was one, and, you are equally culpable.

...

You have a fan, probably out of necessity.
 
Deecee:
I've an interest in anatomy. I'd love to know what the differences are between the digestion of Homo Sap and Erectus.
Seems odd to me that they could only eat meat.
Still waiting on that source BTW.
Ignorant retard. I NEVER CLAIMED that Erectus could only eat meat. I explained what I meant in my previous post. Here, try reading this again:

mountain_hare tried to clarify:
Because we all know that I was talking about the anatomy of Homo Erectus and the Neanderthal, and not about the availability of vegetarian foods during that period of time... But hey, if you can provide evidence that Homo Erectus or Neanderthals could grow crops, and produce vegetarian food in such a quantity that they didn't need meat to survive, then go ahead.
For Christ's sake, learn how to read, you ignorant retard. I never made any claim about the anatomy of Homo Erectus. However, I did make a (correct) statement about the AVAILABILITY of vegetarian food. Homo Erectus didn't grow crops. Vegetarian food wasn't plentiful, hence Homo Erectus needed to supplement his diet with meat to survive. Understand yet?

Stop with the fucking strawmen, kid.

As for cultivation.
How do cows get by?
Cows get by by eating grains which humans grow and feed them. Cows also sometimes eat grass, which humans imported and purposefully grew. The grass in Australia is not native to Australia... it was grown SPECIFICALLY for the cows to eat. And most importantly, humans aren't cows. Show me a human who can gain appreciable sustainance from grass, and your analogy might be even half decent.

Y'see out in the country plants grow all over the place.
Edible plants? I know that you're probably ignorant of biology, but humans can't digest cellulose...

No need to grow the stuff just pull it out of the ground....
That's great! Then go out and live in the country like a tribesman! Let's see how long you last.

So you present an argument unsupported by any empirical evidence
Well, actually, it is. My conclusions are based on supported premises.

based on your flash in the pan cultural values
Vegetarianism is a cultural value of Australia? Funny, I thought that the vast majority of people here ate meat while laughing.

Quite the contrary. From where I stand, it seems that YOU adhere to flash in the pan cultural values. Hey, your parents eat meat, your friends eat meat, and almost everyone around you eats meat without batting an eyelash. OBVIOUSLY eating meat isn't bad. I mean, if enough people condone a particular action, it suddenly becomes moral, right? Like Hitler's slaughter of 6 million Jews? :rolleyes:

and then you accuse me of spewing bibber.
Which you are. You misrepresent my position, and then attack it. Such a method is not only futile, it is highly dishonest.

Kocktoko:
What DeeCee? You don't except MountainHare's opinion as fact and truth!
Oops, I never claimed that my opinion was fact or truth. But hey, you've always been great at talking shit.

Blasphemy. How dare you actually ask for prove and evidence!
It's ironic that an ignorant piece of shit like Kotoko, who has yet to produce a single piece of evidence to demonstrate that rottweilers and pit bulls are natural killing machines, is criticizing me for failing to 'prove' an opinion. Even more ironically, she's telling this to Deecee, who has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that animals aren't sentient beings.

MountainHare has never been able to backup arguments or provide proof when challenged.
Like when I provided 5+ sources to debunk your bullshit statement that pitbulls were born killers? Oops, you didn't like that, did you? Which is why you're seeking me out in other threads with the sole purpose of insulting me.

Apparently, he thinks that if he sticks his chest out and bellows at people in a nasty manner, that that should be a gesture of his superiority and power.
Likewise, you seem to think that if you wave your tits about a bit and squeal and bitch repetitively, people might accept what you have to say.

Mostly people just skip over his posts, because of this.
Ahh, I see. Do you have any statistical evidence to back up that statement? What sample size did you take? From which section of posters? What percentage of them claimed to skip over my posts?

This is an excellent chance for you to learn how to support your assertions. Sadly, I doubt you'll take the opportunity.

P.S. I just ignore him.
That's why you're responding to me in a condescending manner, even if indirectly. Obviously you AREN'T ignoring me, since you are acknowledging my existence. And how can you comment specifically on my post, if you haven't read it? Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

Ouch, must hurt to be shown for the lying, hypocritical PoS you are. You're attempting to bait and inflame, which is fine by me. You know perfectly well from previous experience that I will come out on top, as usual, whereas you'll run away to cry in a corner.

Sometimes stupid people just refuse to accept anything other than their own opinion. They'd prefer to remain ignorant assholes.
It seems that you understand yourself better than other people.
 
Last edited:
:eek:

I don't know where to start.
Are you pullin' my leg?
I hope so.....

Homo Erectus didn't grow crops. Vegetarian food wasn't plentiful,

hopeless. You'd starve in a rainforest.

Cows get by by eating grains which humans grow and feed them. Cows also sometimes eat grass

and tigers all eat lamb chops and live in factories

Edible plants?

Lettuce! What sort of vegetarian are you?

Then go out and live in the country like a tribesman! Let's see how long you last.

A lot longer than you it seems.

YOU adhere to flash in the pan cultural values. Hey, your parents eat meat, your friends eat meat, and almost everyone around you eats meat without batting an eyelash.

Yup I read an article in vogue Meat, it's the new black.

Words fail me. Please tell me your joking.
Well either way you just made my hall of fame.

Dee Cee
 
Deecee:
I don't know where to start.
Are you pullin' my leg?
I hope so.....
I thought the exact same thing when I saw your bullshit. Let's observe your lack of knowledge in both basic biology, and evolutionary biology.

Mountainhare: Homo Erectus didn't grow crops. Vegetarian food wasn't plentiful,

DC: hopeless. You'd starve in a rainforest.
Homo Erectus didn't live in rainforests, idiot. He lived mainly on grasslands.

MH: Cows get by by eating grains which humans grow and feed them. Cows also sometimes eat grass

DC: and tigers all eat lamb chops and live in factories
Ahh, so you can't address my rebuttal. Your point (that there is plenty of natural food out in the countryside) has been shot down, and the best you have to offer is a lame ass sarcastic remark? Pathetic, dude. Just pathetic.

Mountain Hare:Edible plants?

Deecee:Lettuce! What sort of vegetarian are you?
1. Lettuce don't grow all over the countryside, imbecile. You're living in fantasy land.

2. Lettuce didn't even exist during the times of Homo Erectus.

The rest of your post stinks like a 4 day old diaper.
 
Last edited:
Fuck me mountain you really are a lost cause.

I can't believe I'm about to justify my assertion that humanity managed to feed itself prior to the invention of factory farming.
Your lucky I'm having a quiet day.

Let's observe your lack of knowledge in both basic biology, and evolutionary biology.

You rumbled me! Just do me a favour and don't tell my patients.

Homo Erectus didn't live in rainforests, idiot. He lived mainly on grasslands.

I never said he did. This is all a bit of a side channel IMHO but here's a map none the less
fig-1-06.gif

World distribution of fossil Homo erectus.

And Here's another.

savannahmap.gif


sa·van·na also sa·van·nah A flat grassland of tropical or subtropical regions.

Go figure.

Y'ever been to Botswana mountain?
Nice place lots of grass.

The natural distribution of Botswana's vegetation is closely related to rainfall patterns. Most of the country (around 90%) is covered by savanna...
Over 3,000 species of plants have been recorded in Botswana, 650 of which are woody plants. Of particular interest are the numerous wild edible plants, which rural residents, particularly Bushmen, make considerable use of. Over 200 edible plant species have been recorded

So only 200+ edible plant species on that chunck of grassland.
Whoever would have thought?

Ahh, so you can't address my rebuttal. Your point (that there is plenty of natural food out in the countryside) has been shot down,

Oh dear. Whats the weather like in fantasy land by the way?

Here's a picture of some elephants waiting patiently for the farmer to come feed them some grains he made earlier.
They live on grassland you see and edible food is hard for a hebivore to come by.
Thats why elephants were invented after farmers.

--sri-lanka--sabaragamuwa--id=14672.jpg


Lettuce don't grow all over the countryside, imbecile. You're living in fantasy land.

Check this... Geographical Distribution of Wild Lactuca Species

A broad survey of available world literature showed that at least 98 wild Lactuca spp. (Asteraceae) have been described taxonomically. The distribution of the genus Lactuca worldwide includes 17 species in Europe, 51 in Asia, 43 in Africa, and 12 in the Americas (mostly the North American subcontinent). Species originating in Asia, Africa, and the Americas form ca. 83% of known Lactuca spp. richness;

Well ok then, you only find lettuce on four of the continents.
What about carrots, parsnips, sprouts, cabbage, cucumber, blackberry, blueberry, oranges, lemons, apples and prickly pears?
Some of these must grow in the countryside.
Or are they just more of those non-edible plants that farmers make in factories to feed their animals?

2. Lettuce didn't even exist during the times of Homo Erectus.

Of course not, every body knows lettuce was invented by the Romans!
I can't find a link though. Perhaps you can provide one.

You are a terminally silly person.
Dee Cee
 
Deecee:
I can't believe I'm about to justify my assertion that humanity managed to feed itself prior to the invention of factory farming.
Whoops. Straw man argument on your behalf. I'm merely asking you to demonstrate that Homo Erectus could survive on a vegetarian diet. You have failed to support such an assertion. NEXT!

Mountain_hare: Homo Erectus didn't live in rainforests, idiot. He lived mainly on grasslands.
Deecee:
I never said he did.

Really? Then what was this?
Mountainhare Vegetarian food wasn't plentiful (during the times of Homo Erectus),

Deece:hopeless. You'd starve in a rainforest.
You were pretty much implying that Homo Erectus lived in a rainforest. If you weren't, perhaps you should try to make what you are trying to say a little clearer, next time.

This is all a bit of a side channel IMHO but here's a map none the less
*sigh*

1. Ironically, both of your maps actually support my assertion that Homo Erectus lived on flatlands.

2. How recent is your second map? Is it a map of savannah's and rainforests TODAY?

So only 200+ edible plant species on that chunck of grassland.
Whoever would have thought?
1. The number of edible plant species is an indiction of the biomass of edible plants available. You might find 200 plant species on a grassland plane, but perhaps only one gram of each. Not much of a feast, eh?

2. Botswana Mountain is not an accurate representation of all grasslands. To support your generalization that grasslands provide adequate vegetation for sustenance, you're going to need to provide a larger sample size, and some statistical evidence.

3. And may I point out that the vegetation which is present TODAY is completely irrelevant to the question of what vegetation existed millions of years ago.

Here's a picture of some elephants waiting patiently for the farmer to come feed them some grains he made earlier.
They live on grassland you see and edible food is hard for a hebivore to come by.
Thats why elephants were invented after farmers.
Red herring.

1. We were initially talking about COWS. The question of elephants is irrelevant.

2. That isn't 'the country', it's some sort of grassland savana.

3. And just in case you aren't aware, humans can't gain nutrition from grass. So your attempted analogy fails.

Well ok then, you only find lettuce on four of the continents.
Bait and switch. Wild strands of pseudo-lettuce don't count (although you might have a case if you can demonstrate that they are good sources of sustanence). We're talking about the domesticated versions of lettuce which is sold in the shop.

2. Lettuce didn't even exist during the times of Homo Erectus.

Of course not, every body knows lettuce was invented by the Romans!
It's called evolution. Great Danes didn't exist during the times of Homo Erectus, either...
 
I'm having a reality check here people.
mountainhare has shaken me to the core.
How can this be. I need to review what I know.

So he's a vegetarian who has trouble with the concept of edible plants.
He believes the distant past was scarce in vegetarian resources.
He admits that cows "sometimes" eat grass when they can't get enough of the grains that farmers grow for them.
He believes that meat eaters are victims of recent and short lived fashion. Begging the question, What did carnivores eat when vegetarian food was rare and meat unfashionable?
He states with glee that my assertion that there is "plenty of food in the countryside" has been shot down. Even though I can see a field of wheat through my bedroom window.
Oh and lettuce has only came into existence following the arrival of early man..
Supporting evidence? Why worry? Just imagine stuff instead!
All of this from just two or three posts.

Is it me or is this kid a complete fuckwit?
How does he get through the day without hurting himself.
He must live in some managed care facility it's the only possible alternative.

Dee Cee
 
Back
Top