Vege

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

All the slaves of Rome acting together could have won their freedom - but they decided it wasnt worth it. Ergo, they were NOT dominant,

Slaves tried, and failed. The lesson got through.

The dominance of man is clear-most large hunting cats in Europe, West Asia and South Asia who lived in fertile areas got killed of pretty quick-do you think lions and tigers and such animals were unique to a few isolated areas? Men got rid of them. That to me implied dominance.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and your point is .....?

Commenting on your "men as food" quote.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap


No, rapists aren't looking for kids.

Yes, they are looking for dominance through sexual (ie. reproductive) means.

Just as humans who kill an animal - despite having no need to - are looking for dominance over that animal.


I was trying to demonstrate that killing something "because you can digest it" follows the same carnal desires that rape does.

Care to invoke Goodwin at some point? I am sure you will at some point

Aren't you invoking it yourself by saying that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Yes, they are looking for dominance through sexual (ie. reproductive) means.

You can have sex without looking for reproduction, just like you can eat without wanting nutrition.

Just as humans who kill an animal - despite having no need to - are looking for dominance over that animal.

Of course humans had needs to kill animals-in some environments, they are the only food sources- in others, the best food sources, and in most, very valuable food sources.

I was trying to demonstrate that killing something "because you can digest it" follows the same carnal desires that rape does.

NO, the ability to digest is not a desire, but a simple biological fact-that we can digest them points to the fact we are designed biologically to consume them .

Aren't you invoking it yourself by saying that?

I have yet to use the N word.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap


You can have sex without looking for reproduction, just like you can eat without wanting nutrition.

Are you not now making the same equation I just did, by equating "sex without reproduction" (as the desire behind rape) and "eating without wanting nutrition" (as the preferance for flesh)?

Of course humans had needs to kill animals-in some environments, they are the only food sources- in others, the best food sources, and in most, very valuable food sources.

Had? But what about have?

Of course, one could argue that perhaps humans where never ment to inhabit artic environments (for instance) in the first place.

NO, the ability to digest is not a desire, but a simple biological fact-that we can digest them points to the fact we are designed biologically to consume them .

That was not what I intended to mean - the desire is in killing because you can digest. Like raping because you posses the biological functions to.

I have yet to use the N word.

You did by proxy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Are you not now making the same equation I just did, by equating "sex without reproduction" (as the desire behind rape) and "eating without wanting nutrition" (as the preferance for flesh)?

Eating meat is nutriotious- you get complete proteins, amino acids, and fatty acids at least. Eating without nutrion would be to consume some modern processed monstrosity, muck like a twinkie, simply for the taste.

Had? But what about have?

Of course, one could argue that perhaps humans where never ment to inhabit artic environments (for instance) in the first place.

In many parts of the world, YES. Animal proteins are an important nutrient.

That was not what I intended to mean - the desire is in killing because you can digest. Like raping because you posses the biological functions to.

What desire? our desire is to eat meat-to do so we must kill the animals-the butchering is a necessary step. Raping is pleasure in the step. Its annalogy is animal cruelty.

[Traianvs]

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't know what I should vote for in this poll
I eat everything except meat, fish, birds, crabs, insects etc
I'm not dead yet, so it's not that unhealthy!!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap


Eating meat is nutriotious

But is not neccisary - it's a preferance, not a requirement. A desire for meat is not a desire for nutrition, but a desire for the meat itself. A desire to dominate and consume the animal.


EDIT: To clarify, that may not be neccisarily what is running through people's mind as they chew on their cow but it is inherit in the subconscious meaning of the action and choice.

[General Ludd]

And what was your stance towards cannibalism, by the way? You never went so far to say if it was either acceptable or not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd


But is not neccisary - it's a preferance, not a requirement. A desire for meat is not a desire for nutrition, but a desire for the meat itself. A desire to dominate and consume the animal.


EDIT: To clarify, that may not be neccisarily what is running through people's mind as they chew on their cow but it is inherit in the subconscious meaning of the action and choice.

Eating plants is not a requirement- but I guess then your explination is that plants are an inferior form of life cause they don't meet your chriterion, and hence, whatever....

In fact, there is no requirement to eat anything anymore. I am sure we can synthetically manufacture all the requsite nutrients at this point, or come close to it, so really, besides the few plants we might need to start the whole process, there relly is no excuse for you to eat anything that has not been fully synthetically manufactured at this point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd
And what was your stance towards cannibalism, by the way? You never went so far to say if it was either acceptable or not.

It's a health hazzard for humans overall-so only if protein is in real short demand is it a viable nutrition technique.

[Provost Harrison]

Not if cooked properly...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GePap


Eating plants is not a requirement

I think it is.

People can live without meat... but I have never heard of anyone living without plants. And with the fervour some meat-eaters hate vegetarians, I am sure there would be some movement to do this if it was possible.

In fact, there is no requirement to eat anything anymore. I am sure we can synthetically manufacture all the requsite nutrients at this point, or come close to it, so really, besides the few plants we might need to start the whole process, there relly is no excuse for you to eat anything that has not been fully synthetically manufactured at this point.

I'm extremely doubtful of this. But I would be interested in knowing more about it, and especially the process of making the 'synthetic nutrients', if it really is possible.

It's a health hazzard for humans overall-so only if protein is in real short demand is it a viable nutrition technique.

Well, atleast you are fairly consistent. I don't see many meat-eaters accept cannibalism, ever. But, I hope you realize that any meat (especially when 'factory farmed') is a health hazzard for humans when compared to plants. There is always a greater risk of contracting a sickness from meat then there is from plants.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"To each his own" is indeed the best rationale for any diet.

I also would like to add that I'm so damn fed up with having to listen to lectures about how the lions eat meat every single time I go to a dinner and someone notice I chose the vegetarian dish. I never tell anyone else what to eat so why can't people just leave me alone?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by GePap


Slaves tried, and failed. The lesson got through.

Wrong, they did not learn a lesson. No other major revolts occurred because the status of the slaves increased in general. After the revolt the Romans automatically started treating their house slaves (not the ones working for the state in the mines etc) better and better in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. In fact many slaves became the right hand and close advisors of the emperor, and many slaves were set free by their masters to rise in the administration, jurisdiction etc... It was not in their interest to revolt, see? Actually that caused a big problem as the Romans were running out of new slaves in the 3rd century AD. It's one of the factors that caused Roman decline.

Anthropological evidence seems very clear that man was more than just a scavanger of meat back 100,000 years ago-but that we did hunt extensively. We not only had a hand in wipping out many large mammal species, but perhaps as well other members of the Genus Homo.

Actually our predecessors were scavengers, and even before that we descend from vegetarian animals. A parallel evolution of homo is the parahtropus; and like all of these animals, paranthropus robustus for example was a vegetarian. Our direct line of predecessors in evolution were scavengers first before they became hunters. In fact in various archaeological contexts bones of human predecessors with biting marks of predators were found together with gazelle bones etc. WE were the prey of lions and other predators at a given time.

I've seen a lot of BS here, like this

Yes, we are omnivores. Our teeth are made for either flesh and plantlife. So our natural role is also to eat meat, but not solely meat. If we were not meant to eat meat, we would not be able to.

We can swim, but do we need to do it to survive? There are many things we can do in certain situations, but we don't have to. I don't see your argument here...