Nathaniel O'Flaherty wrote:only true with broiler chickens. egg laying hens can live up to 2 years before being sent to slaughter.

I'll take your word on that... either way, 2 years is pretty long for chickens.

Quote:

regardless, 2 months of muscle non use woudl cause severe weakness and hieghtened injury.

That's why they're in a coup

Quote:

exactly. free range only gives them a BIT of room (the minimum to be able to be labled free range is ridiculous)

Poultry generally don't need a lot of room as they're not migratory and generally flightless. Either way, from what I've read about them, movement doesn't increase or decrease the nominal amount of meat, just the blood circulation.. just makes the meat more dense basically.

Quote:


a veg diet was shown to be the ONLY medicine/aid/cure etc... that REVERSED heart disease. NOTHING else has ever been able to do that.

meat are linked DIRECTLY with things such as heart disease liver problems etc...

Incorrect. Meats themselves are not linked directly with heart disease... the excessive intakes of fatty tissues in meats, and sedentiary lifestyle and pre-disposition to the condition Tri-fecta have however. Eating lean meats as part of a balanced diet provides you with protien sources (as well as Vit. B-12, which is non-existant in the plant kingdom). The key isn't the mere presence of meat, but the proportions, the cooking methods and lifestyle habits. Pointing the finger at meat is very reactionary... there are slothy, overindulgant vegitarians/vegans that die of heart attacks too, Nate, you oughtta know that. Eat too much of anything, and you're going to suffer.

Quote:

while a SMART person eating meat that actually had a healthy diet (majority of americans do not) could be pretty close to a veg as far as bodily health.

Assuming that you can quantify that, you'd have to get 2 people starting at the same weight, height, metabolic rate, then eating the exact amount of calories, doing the exact same activities, and having the exact same amount of sleep... I'm not saying that veg/vegans on the whole are more healthy, just more tuned into what they're eating, and generally eat less because they're not gorging on inordinate amounts of saturated fats.

Quote:

keeping hens/chickens in cages to raise them did not exsist before factory farming.

Incorrect. Couping Chickens in meshed cages was standard practice in greco/roman times for large commercial farms. Family farms weren't usually as concerned with losing a lot of livestock to predators, so they'd coup them in an opened shed.

Quote:

growth hormones were not used before factory farming

True, but not all large or factory farms use growth hormones.

Quote:

antibiotics were not needed as much or used as preventative maintenance to guard against the intolerable conditions before factory farming

Antibiotics aren't used as preventative maintenance at all. It's too costly! If you look at how an actual large farm or factory farm is set up, they use as little as possible of the meds because every cattle is tagged and the history is checked before sale of the livestock. If a head of cattle, pork or a ream of poultry is given antibiotics, they automatically lose about half their value... I pointed that out more than a few times in the past and here. It doesn't make any economic sense to do that. Also, if you go to a large animal farm, you'll notice that the "intollerable conditions" are fine by the animals. They get food and water (as much as they want), they get checked by vets regularly (have to be checked actually if you're in Canada, don't know about the US), and the manure is carted away at least 4-5 times daily, and their bedding is changed daily. A farmer that doesn't do that is setting themselves up for failure because their product is going to be vastly inferior... growth hormone or not, the animals will be sickly, and they'll be miserable which means fights, problems and ultimately, low prices at auction.

Quote:

i can go on and on about NEW things that were introduced when industrialized farmign came about.

Such as? Farming on a large scale still requires that you have an area to birth, raise, bed-down, feed and water the animals. They have to be cared for. Nothing has changed so radically in the last 150 years other than the scale. Seriously 150 years ago, a commercial farmer would support his family (about 12-15 people roughly) and about 50-60 other people that bought his wares. The same manpower is feeding over 1000 people. Scale went up, and so did the need for higher yeilds, so techniques had to be refined, but they haven't strayed from the basic principles.

Quote:

correct, in canada. we already had this discussion about how much canadian facotry farms differ from us factory farms. the difference seemed to be pretty drastic.

True, if you're talking about US farms, I can't vouch for them, I just don't know. I do know, however, that what works here will work down south, and while common sense isn't all that common, farmers talk, and they use best practices. I can't imagine why some farmers would folly with such self-defeating practices. I don't doubt that there are bad apples that give the rest a bad taint, but I don't think that most of these organisations are interested in showing you the average farmer, but the worst one... gets the money rolling in.

Quote:


the US is obviously different gam

%60 of all antimicrobial products sold in the US goes to non-theraputic use of antimicrobial products in livestock.

I'm wondering where you got that statistic... Heart-worm medication and hoof and mouth disease vaccinations are classed under anti-microbials here in Canada.

Quote:


BTW, There haven't been humans for hundreds of thousands of years, Nate. We've existed as a species for about 60,000 years since the days of homoerectus.

yes i made a whoopsie. i said hundreds of thousands when i was trying to say tens of thousands. excuse my ill grammar.

I'll forgive the order of magnitude, but only if you'll loan me $10000 if I only need about $20.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I understand feeling sorry for animals, but I put human life above and animals life. Is my mother more important than a grasshopper? YES! I love animals and have considered going vegan, I might still do it. You have to realize that it's our nature to be omnivores, our bodies are designed to eat both. Therefor, it is against our nature not to eat meat. That being said, I try not to eat alot of meat because I would rather not kill a lot of animals. It's a personal decision and not one I should force on anyone. Besides, trying to force people to see @!#$ your way rarely works. I have seen all of the horrible pictures and videos before and, even though it saddens me, it is nothing worse than what occurs naturally. The only thing I don't like is how removed people are from the actual killing of animals. If people had to see the animal they were going to eat for dinner slaughtered they would definitely feel differently. One thing I take from the whole argument is how much better it is for us to eat wild animals instead of farm raised. Hunting allows the animal a free and fulfilling life and when there end comes it is relatively quicker than what would naturally occur. Ultimately it's up to people to make up their own minds and peta should just inform those people interested.

bigj480 wrote:I understand feeling sorry for animals, but I put human life above and animals life. Is my mother more important than a grasshopper? YES! I love animals and have considered going vegan, I might still do it. You have to realize that it's our nature to be omnivores, our bodies are designed to eat both. Therefor, it is against our nature not to eat meat. That being said, I try not to eat alot of meat because I would rather not kill a lot of animals. It's a personal decision and not one I should force on anyone. Besides, trying to force people to see @!#$ your way rarely works. I have seen all of the horrible pictures and videos before and, even though it saddens me, it is nothing worse than what occurs naturally. The only thing I don't like is how removed people are from the actual killing of animals. If people had to see the animal they were going to eat for dinner slaughtered they would definitely feel differently. One thing I take from the whole argument is how much better it is for us to eat wild animals instead of farm raised. Hunting allows the animal a free and fulfilling life and when there end comes it is relatively quicker than what would naturally occur. Ultimately it's up to people to make up their own minds and peta should just inform those people interested.

totally agree on most thigns u said here.

however, our bodies were NOT supposed to eat meat. we only developed the habbit after we developed cutting tools in which we could kill an animal and cut it up into small enough pieces to jam in to our mouths. but indeed we are not physiologically designed to be a meat eater.


---

gam-

your post will take a bit longer so im waiting till tomorrow night to do it. im going up to the snow in about 6 hours from now and i gotta get sleep.

however i wanted to say one thing, u said b12 does not exsist in the plant kingdom. that is not true and i already pointed that out in a previous post in this thread and i believe i listed the non animal forms of b12. so check that.

ill respond in greater detail on your post late tomorrow.


thanx for the debate everyone.






:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Quote:


totally agree on most thigns u said here.

however, our bodies were NOT supposed to eat meat. we only developed the habbit after we developed cutting tools in which we could kill an animal and cut it up into small enough pieces to jam in to our mouths. but indeed we are not physiologically designed to be a meat eater.

technically you are right about us not naturally being exclusive meat eaters aka CARNIVORES - because we are naturally OMNIVORES.

I found this thanks to Google - Dental Anatomy(with pictures)

Quote:

Incisors - The four front teeth, known as the biting edge of the anterior teeth
Cuspids - Teeth next to the incisors. One tooth per quadrant, primarily used in tearing/ripping food
Premolars - Two teeth per quadrant. In between the molars and the cuspids
Molars - The back twelve teeth, used to chew. Three teeth per quadrant

Your incisors and cuspids aren't there to chew grass. Just as you're molars aren't there for biting through chicken nuggets.

Besides that, our digestive system can handle some plant digestion, but is NOT well equipped for an all herbivore diet. Why do you think you find corn etc in your feces? You CANNOT digest the bulk of it(Find away to let us do that and you may have solved the world hunger problem for a while). You're digestive tract does not produce the enzymes to utilize most of what plants have to offer in terms of nutrition and energy. A well developed HERBIVORE digestive system can.

Don't feel bad though, because a true herbivore's digestive tract isn't very well equipped for meat either(and our's is).



I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Hmm, I eat meat on a regular basis and I can't stand PETA. But how did this turn into
get the vegaterien's? Nats not wrong for not wanting to eat meat any more then your wrong for wanting to. Its his PERSONALLY preference and that means hes neither right nor wrong. And I don't remember him attacking anyones chicken farm in general but if you do the things he says you do then how can you get upset? If its the truth and your ashamed then change it but don't get mad when someone points out your flaws if your too proud to admit they need fixing.

Gam, Their is no point in arguing that the conditions that which livestock are kept in is deplorable because its a fact that in this country they are. I do not know about Canada so I will not even try and guess.

Bastardking3000, Ever eat a raw carrot? or potato? well i don't know about you but I bite off a piece with my front teeth or K9's.

I'm not saying either side is wrong here all I'm saying is why attack Nat? Its really not a fair fight if he has to try a battle the whole org by himself.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

BK3K: I've pointed this out a few times... Inclusive to the dental and jaw configurations, humans have stereoscopic eyesight (both eyes face front) where as, most vegetarian animals have monoscopic wide-field vision (eyes set to the sides of the cranium).

Also, our bodies produce the natural enzymes required to break down meat and plant matter, most herbivores do not have them.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

nate, do you only eat at restaurants that serve all veg?
do you ever go out with friends to a non-veg restaurant?
if you lived back in time....a few hundred years ago, would you eat meat?

someone pointed out a good point, when your child and dog run into the street, who do you call on?

my opinion...
i would rather have a few dozen chickens killed if it meant life for one person, if your mother was dying and the cure could be found in one little (or big) animal, would you not want that animal inspected and disected to find the cure? if my cat had the cure, i'd be glad to give it up for you.

i understand you are tired of debating your views, but...well..i don't know what else to say...i'll think and post when it comes to me
i'm taking everything you say with an open mind, so please do the same

bigj480 wrote: Ultimately it's up to people to make up their own minds and peta should just inform those people interested.

Very well said, I agree completely.

My favorite peta scare tactic is the comic book given to small children that has "YOUR PARENTS ARE MURDERERS" on the cover, and shows an angry man with a bloody knife killing an animal.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Man i wish i had a big ass steak right now

haha just kidding guys. I think that experimenting with animals like the pics on the first page is wrong but this group seems to take it a little far. the only thing that i agree with them on is the fact that torturing animals is wrong. other than that i hunt, fish, think that ppl should have seeing eye dogs, killing animals for food is cool, ect...

I was raised that if you killed it you eat it and ever since thats what i have done and i find nothing wrong with it. I mean what else were cows put on this earth for? They arent good for anything else and if you have ever had to deal with cattle or even been around them for more than 10 mins you would know that they do nothing but eat and sleep all day long. and when you kill one whats so bad about that as long as they dont suffer cause they are dumb as @!#$ and are good for nothing more than mowing a field.

thats just my opinion though so take it how you want it.


Later
David

I need photoshop...cause its time for a new sig

Sivler06Cobalt (David Neal) wrote: They arent good for anything else and if you have ever had to deal with cattle or even been around them for more than 10 mins you would know that they do nothing but eat and sleep all day long. and when you kill one whats so bad about that as long as they dont suffer cause they are dumb as @!#$ and are good for nothing more than mowing a field.

The same could be said about some poeple, except people aren't tasty when grilled







John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

well see some of us actually serve some sort of purpose in some way or another


Later
David

I need photoshop...cause its time for a new sig

John Wilken wrote:
The same could be said about some poeple, except people aren't tasty when grilled

Yes... People need some Bullseye Grill sauce or maranade before grilling. People generally taste like Chicken... unless you're talking about Soylent Green.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

actually, i heard that human tastes like salted pork.




You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)

mikec2003 wrote:actually, i heard that human tastes like salted pork.

Hmmm... I think I have the answer to all of PETA's problems... Take death row inmates and use them for medical experiments. Then when the experiments are done, make them into "faux salted pork".

Those would be some "killer" pork chops!!!




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

From PETA to picking on vegaterins to canabalism. It would seem PETA is at the begining of a very nasty slippery slope down to a bad Sci-Fi movie.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:From PETA to picking on vegaterins to canabalism. It would seem PETA is at the begining of a very nasty slippery slope down to a bad Sci-Fi movie.

Funny how that happened... check out "motel hell" next time you're renting movies. It's like Soylent Green, but with rednecks instead of Charlton Heston




John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!! Seriously though, why do they go around telling people not to eat animals? It's not like I'm going around telling them they should eat a hamburger or steak. Eating humans now...depends on circumstances but I'd probably never eat anything that could have the same potential intelligence as me (and have it proven).


*****************************************************
*
* Premium as of January 25, 2005. Support the Org.
*
*****************************************************

I was never picking on anyone, I simply disagreed with the points made and posted my thoughts. I respect vegetarians.

/\ /\ /\ Oops, My bad. Sorry dude.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I wasn't picking on them, I called them uninformaed, mostly because of stuff like this, taken form http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/2/vegetarian_myths.htm

Quote:

MYTH #7:

Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than meat-eaters.

Surprising as it may seem, some prior studies have shown the annual all-causedeath rate of vegetarian men to be slightly more than that of non-vegetarian men (0.93% vs 0.89. Similarly, the annual all-cause death rate of vegetarian women was shown to be significantly higher than that of non-vegetarian women (0.86% vs 0.54. (40)

Russell Smith, PhD, referred to in myth # 5, in his authoritative study on heart disease, showed that as animal product consumption increased among some study groups, death rates decreased! Such results were not obtained among vegetarian subjects. For example, in a study published by Burr and Sweetnam in 1982, analysis of mortality data revealed that, although vegetarians had a slightly (.11 lower rate of heart disease than non-vegetarians, the all-cause death rate was much HIGHER for vegetarians (41).

It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again, before colonisation). (43)

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets. Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).

It is popular in sports nutrition to recommend "carb loading" for athletes, to increase their endurance levels. But recent studies done in New York and South Africa show that the opposite is true: athletes who "carb loaded" had significantly less endurance than those who "fat loaded" before athletic events (46).

Wow thats a cool find Ha Ha. Who would have known? I thought eating all veggy stuff was better for you. Tho I can't go without my hamburgers! I thought it was a trade off not unlike smoking. Where you KNOW its bad for you but its just Soo damn good you don't care. Now thanks to this I don't have to feel the least little bit bad. Thanks man!




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

haha-


he gives references to studies done in the 70's and 80's

i keep deleting and retyping this post because of how flabberghausted i am at that article. and how scared i am that that man is actually a doctor. however he does have a few good points and facts.

i was going through each and every myth he supposedly debunks and debunking him. however, this post would be roughly 3 times as long as his article since i would be showing multiple studies and proof against what he is saying. dont get me wrong SOME of the stuff he is saying is correct, but a intelligent vegan knows how to structure a diet to get everything needed.

also in another article on that guys site he advises EVERYONE to lower the amount of grains you eat. study after study after study after study shows whole grains are TREMENDOUSLY good for you. but this guy says stop eating them.


i already stated, the US GOVERNMENT recently officially announced, that a vegetarian diet can and does provide every single vital nutrient and vitamin for healthy living. and that is really all the proof i need or ANYONE needs to understand that you do NOT HAVE to eat meat to live.






:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Funny, I read his references and they range from the 40s to well into the deep 90s.

Most current dates of info...

Myth #1 1996

Myth #2 1998

Myth #3 1992

Myth #4 1995

Myth #5 1998

Myth #6 1999

Myth #7 (posted) 1999

Myth #8 1997

Myth #9 1974 (the first one that relies soley on a study more than 10 years old)

Myth #10 1999

Myth #11 1998

Myth 12 no date given

Myth 13 1999

Myth #14 No reference given

Myth #15 1998

So, no, it's not based on old data. It uses old and new studies along with many historical refeneces.

On top of that, this doctor actually treats people for their nutient deficientcies. Anemia being the big one.

It has been shown over and over and over that there is no other source for Vitamine B12 other than animal sources and that Vit A is near impossible to get from vegies (in india it's the bugs that live on the veggies that do it, same with B12). Then there is Omega-3 that cannot be gained any other way. Then there's the unsaturated fats that come from plants and trans-fatty acids, both are bad for you.

I think this doctor does not say "do not eat grains" he says that grains are not very healthy unless balanced out with some saturated fat and animal protiens.

He also goes into the proof that we were designed not as herbavors or carnavors but omnivores. The short intestinal tract and presence of HydroChloric acid is proof enough, but there's ore if you dig a bit. He also says he has cured anemic vegans with simple milk, just to get some saturated fat and some animal protien into their system. He says that the healthiest diet is balanced, and that the least healthy is Vegan. He does not condem vegaterianism, stating that eggs and milk will provide everything you need from animals. So don't take it too hard.

PAX

Quote:

On top of that, this doctor actually treats people for their nutient deficientcies. Anemia being the big one.

It has been shown over and over and over that there is no other source for Vitamine B12 other than animal sources and that Vit A is near impossible to get from vegies (in india it's the bugs that live on the veggies that do it, same with B12). Then there is Omega-3 that cannot be gained any other way. Then there's the unsaturated fats that come from plants and trans-fatty acids, both are bad for you.

here are the CORRECT facts for you. which i have already stated.

Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D.-
The requirement for vitamin B12 is very low. Non-animal sources include Red Star Vegetarian Support Formula or T-6635+ nutritional yeast (a little less than 1 Tablespoon supplies the adult RDA), and vitamin B12 fortified soymilk. It is especially important for pregnant and lactating women, infants, and children to have reliable sources of vitamin B12 in their diets.

A number of reliable vegan food sources for vitamin B12 are known. One brand of nutritional yeast, Red Star T-6635+, has been tested and shown to contain active vitamin B12. This brand of yeast is often labeled as Vegetarian Support Formula with or without T-6635+ in parentheses following this new name. It is a reliable source of vitamin B12. Nutritional yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is a food yeast, grown on a molasses solution, which comes as yellow flakes or powder. It has a cheesy taste. Nutritional yeast is different from brewer's yeast or torula yeast. It can often be used by those sensitive to other yeasts.


would you look at that


as a vegan it is painfulyl easy to get the correct amount of b12 from non animal sources. just gotta know what your doing is all.

Quote:

I think this doctor does not say "do not eat grains" he says that grains are not very healthy unless balanced out with some saturated fat and animal protiens.

He also goes into the proof that we were designed not as herbavors or carnavors but omnivores. The short intestinal tract and presence of HydroChloric acid is proof enough, but there's ore if you dig a bit. He also says he has cured anemic vegans with simple milk, just to get some saturated fat and some animal protien into their system. He says that the healthiest diet is balanced, and that the least healthy is Vegan. He does not condem vegaterianism, stating that eggs and milk will provide everything you need from animals. So don't take it too hard.

im not takign it hard, he is just incorrect.

a stupid vegan would be at the most risk. but a smart vegan would be at less risk than most meat eaters. dont u think its a bit unprofessional to group the healthiness of an entire group of people and cultures by the stupid ones?

im sure he could have cured a stupid near anemic vegan by having them drink milk. but the exact same result could have been givin by tellign the person to get more b12. and give the resources on which to do that. ie drink milk, take supplements drink/eat fortified foods. it was not the fact the guy was drinking milk that cured him. it was the fact he got the correct amoutn of b12. which could have been reached through NUMEROUS vegan sources. but instead of respecting a persons morals/religion and giving them an equally effective cure, he forced his ways onto his patients. and if i was that patient i would have sued him.






:::Creative Draft Image Manipulation Forum:::

Someone saves your life, but not in the way you want them to, so you sue them?!?!?

You must live in the US.


PAX