I fuckin love both of them.
I fuckin love both of them.
Actually, Mr. Lennon, I CAN imagine a world with no hatred, religion, war, or violence.
I can also imagine attacking such a world, because they would never see it coming.
http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/trashcan.jpg
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...s/carville.jpe
For once, Carville was a man ahead of his time.
Not exactly true. Some scientists, from what I know, think that our ancestors' brains became large due to their meat eating habits, because consuming meat gives a lot of energy compared to the amount of energy they could have spent foraging for fruits, vegetables, etc. However, there really isn't any -PROVEN- evidence for that from what I know. It was just a theory attempting to explain why and how our brains developed the way they did. And even if that was exactly true, I'm not sure why one must eat meat simply because our ancestors did.
For the most part, "HOW WE GOT HERE" is still a huge debate among scientists. It is a subject that I have studied very intensely. You cannot simply just look at a few features on an animal and know what its diet is (exceptions do exist). Horses have canine teeth, but what do they eat ( fingers dont count, its your fault for not feeding them, or hey maybe your finger looked like a twinkie). Maybe we ate meat, maybe we didn't, it doesn't really matter. People will eat what they want to eat. The issue that should be argued over, is whether or not we will have food for our species in the next 40 years.
I eat both meat and vegetables
both, but I prefer meat
50/50 here. The meals are incomplete without eachother, but for me, a dinner without meat is a very sad thing (almost pointless), while a dinner with only meat is just..boring. The meat is the backbone of the meal while the veggies adds a very good taste, that's how it is for me.
I could never be a vegeterian, and I have yet to hear a compelling argument for being one. But I cannot relate to people who hates vegetables either, they are very tasty!
Compelling argument INC
http://www.veganthis.org/why.html
That is 20th century armchair science your talking about. There are many new, accepted ideas of human brain development. There are few assumptions that animals that eat meat are forced to hunt, organize, plan-ahead, and become more intelligent in daily life. Also, the theory that human intelligence derived from massive climate change. Eating protein, however, is a incremental part of evolution and life. Eating plants, in my opinion, disheartens me as much as someone eating cows. That head of lettuce deserves to be left alone just as much as any other organism.
make sure to mark your bingo cards men and womyn
---------- Post added 2011-02-02 at 11:24 PM ----------
It's easy to say that about something that isn't "living" and isn't right in front of you.For the record, I looked at the top of the page and was horrified.
Why aren't those pigs delicious pork products yet?
Actually they lack intelligence completely. Yes they do respond to the environment, but so does water when you boil it. Most plants aren't actually "killed" when you eat them, hence why crops grow back. Take an apple tree for instance, do you really think that it cares you are eating something that is going to fall off of it anyways? In fact, most plants depend on animals eating them in order to spread out, rediversify, evolve, and reproduce.So, what's your argument for killing plants? They're alive. Is it because they're less intelligent than animals?
---------- Post added 2011-02-02 at 11:40 PM ----------
and actually i retract my statement of them being unintelligent and redefine them as being "intelligent" or at least aware of their enviroment.
Source:
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...ensitive-flora
Because we are using the word intelligent loosely, sure they can respond to the environment around them BUT
"For plants to feel physical pain, they must have some sort of organized tissue which, upon stimulation, would activate a structure in the plant that is conscious and could perceive the stimulation as painful. There are no structures within plants that are analogs to the pain receptors, neurons, and pain-perceiving portions of the brains of vertebrate animals. Animals, being mobile, benefit from their ability to sense pain; but plants simply have no biological or evolutionary need for the experience of pain. Even if, contrary to all evidence, plants did feel pain, it would still be preferable to be vegan. More plants are killed in non-vegan diets, as more plants must be harvested to feed animals."
If you want to look at it like that, then it is a lesser of two evils.
---------- Post added 2011-02-02 at 11:47 PM ----------
i think you also missed this too
Most plants aren't actually "killed" when you eat them, hence why crops grow back. Take an apple tree for instance, do you really think that it cares you are eating something that is going to fall off of it anyways? In fact, most plants depend on animals eating them in order to spread out, rediversify, evolve, and reproduce.