aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes violence or non-violence Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

violence or non-violence

S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

Hi,

There has been some long serious debates about eating non-veg food. I wanted to know what you people think about it. Don't you think killing animals for food is an act of violence?

Thanks
Venkatesh S
nishwas mahindra
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 23, 2002
Posts: 104
Venkat,please answer my this question.

In your opinion is it violence or non-violence to kill vegetables and trees?

I think you can answer your own question.

People live by eating other live things, in whatever format.

Or shall I say, they kill live things before eating them.
[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: nishwas mahindra ]
S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

I think that illustrates the point. If there is no common point of communication, there is no conversation. For the record, no I do not believe it is an act of violence.
S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

I was going through this link

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

I think many of the questions put are answered here.

Thanks
Venkatesh S
Ramesh Choudhary
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 10, 2005
Posts: 200
It is violence at it's height. I dread eating over roasted dead bodies.
I do not mind sharing a table with meat eaters, but I think they haven't seen the slaughter that's carried out for impressing our taste buds.
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

Yep, this is the kind of emotive language I was referring to
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Killing a animal just to satisfy your taste buds is height of cruelity...I was born as a vegetarian and I will be a vegetarian forever...

In India vegetarianism is quite prevalent..just wanted to know does vegetaranism exist in other countries...


Helping hands are much better than the praying lips
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

I'm higher on the food chain, get in my belly

Vegetarians of various types are reasonably common in Oz, I have several vegetarian friends.
Raghu Ram
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: 62
I prefer Veg. but someitmes nonvege.


Champak(PB)
Svend Rost
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Posts: 904
No, it's not an act of violence to kill an eat animals. The killing part
should ofcause be done as "humane" as possible.


/Svend Rost
Ramesh Choudhary
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 10, 2005
Posts: 200

Yep, this is the kind of emotive language I was referring to [sleep]

The perception towards vegeteriansm depends on the culture you grow up in. A typical person from china/korea/vietnam would have abused me for my post.
Above comment reinforces my reason.

just wanted to know does vegetaranism exist in other countries

I pride upon the fact that India is the only country where vegeterianism is a
custom. If you are a strict Indian veggie, never ever try to look at a typical menu of a country to your east or west.
[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Ramesh Choudhary ]
paul wheaton
Trailboss

Joined: Dec 14, 1998
Posts: 20529
    ∞

A handful of good soil has more organisms than there are people on the earth. I wonder how many of those organisms die with every step a person takes. Maybe some folks think that the lives of larger organisms have more value than the smaller organisms?

I've heard of folks called "fruitarian" - they eat only that which the plant has released - no plants are harmed. Of course, that fruit is viable life. If you leave it, it could sprout and become a new plant. So here the plant has spent its entire life to generate a few offspring and a fruitarian comes along and eats its babies. And how many animals did the fuitarian kill standing on that soil to pick up that fruit? I wonder if any animals were living on that fruit and also enjoying the fruit - that the fruitarian ate. Eaten alive. Death by stomach acid.

I seem to remember some evolutionary suggestion that humans are bug eating sea monkeys. We're designed for putzing around in shallow water. We have two eyes on the front of our head - just like other predators - to help us judge the distance to our prey.

Violence? I guess it is relative.

I think a better question involves how was what you eat raised? In rows. In monoculture? Basking in the glow of chemicals? Genetically modified?


permaculture Wood Burning Stoves 2.0 - 4-DVD set
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

The emotive language and gap in conversation I was referring to relates to comments which state or imply that non-vegetarian options are evil and that eating meat makes you so. I dislike arguing against comments like 'roasted dead bodies' because they are designed to promote an emotional reaction which detract from the arguments being made.

I have nothing against vegetarians as people or a choice and would support anyone who decides to practice that option. Anyone who wants to throw this in my face does not have my support. (no I'm not referring to anyone on this conversation). To be meaningful, any discussion would need to be civil and argue a point and be prepared to consider a side before presenting an opposing view, but in many situations this initial understanding is not possible. Hence the yawn: I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me, and while I like having my say there isn't a lot point, is there?

I went and browsed the link above for PETA and it has reinforced my original feelings: I am against cruelty to animals and the creation of unnecessary suffering, but I do not support PETA. My reasons for having my original feelings are complicated, but their FAQ had the opposite effect intended. They use weak tools to push their point and it is a practice I would rather not promote. (What's that internet rule for using the 'H' word in a discussion?)
Frank Silbermann
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 06, 2002
Posts: 1387
Originally posted by Venkatesh Sai:
I was going through this link

http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

I think many of the questions put are answered here.

Thanks
Venkatesh S
I have respect for vegetarians whose religion demands vegetarianism. I also have respect for people who choose vegetarianism for themselves. However, I have no respect whatsoever for PETA, and consider its philosophy to be evil.

I believe its German founder came up with the theory to ameliorate her embarassment over the atrocities committed by her grandparents' generation before and during WWII. With her philosophy, she can claim that her grandparents generation behaved no worse than any other western country in that era or earlier, because whatever her grandparents did to human beings other countries of the time did to food animals.
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

Anyhoo, it's late and I'm busy for the next few days so I doubt I'll be able to come back.

Just before I go I thought you might like an explaination of why I can't (or won't) be convinced: I just don't get it.

Not in any negative way, vegetarianism of any form is not something I have ever had any feeling for and while I accept it in others it is not something I feel connected to. My sister decided to spend a period as a vegeterian when we were younger and I didn't get it. When I encounter vegeterians and where it is possible without being rude, I like to ask their reasons for their choice. People do it for a variety of reasons, I don't feel the same way.

I hope you understand that my choice to eat meat is the default for me in the same way that being vegetarian may be the default for others. My inability to see the other point of view is not driven from any ill feeling, just a lack of connection to the issues as others see them.

So I finish with, no I do not believe it is an act of violence.
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
However, I have no respect whatsoever for PETA, and consider its philosophy to be evil.

Personally I would love to spend some time picking their site to pieces and highlighting the parts I feel so strongly against and why, but that would detract from the conversation at hand.
Anand Prabhu
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: 299
I have been a non-vegetarian all my life and I feel this discussion about veg v/s non-veg is a matter of eating preference or cultural influence. These discussions have been existing in India since ages and I still remember a story in a comic book of Amar Chitra Katha about a Spiritual aspirant who is sent to a spiritually advanced person by his Guru to learn about life. The aspirant is shocked to see that the person is a butcher by profession and the butcher then imparts him some wisdom about not judging people and not to assume too much about knowing life. That picture is very impressed in my mind (maybe because I like non-veg food and my conscience agreed with that). Of course, in arguments with my friends, I refer to them by a quote that I saw in a car bumper sticker "A vegetarian is a failed hunter".
Jayesh Lalwani
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Posts: 502
Killing an animal is an act of violence. Cutting down a tree is an act of violence. Cutting wheat stalks is an act of violence. Plucking a fruit is an act of violence. Breaking a flower of it's stem is an act of violence. Hitting an innocend human being is an act of violence. Hitting a human being to stop him from harming an innocent human being is also an act of violence. Breaking a door is an act of violence. Breaking a door to get someone out of a burning building is also an act of violence

Not all acts of violence are bad.
Ram Bhakt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 02, 2005
Posts: 145
Originally posted by Paul Wheaton:

I've heard of folks called "fruitarian" - they eat only that which the plant has released - no plants are harmed. Of course, that fruit is viable life.


A fruit is not a viable life. A seed is. Actually, the whole purpose of a fruit is to let the seeds of the plant spread far. It is meant to be tasty and nutritious so that mobile animals would eat it and spread the seed. So being a fruitarian is probably the ideal diet. Though I am not sure if one can survive soley by eating fruits.
Ram Bhakt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 02, 2005
Posts: 145
BTW, I am a vegan and I am a vegan by choice. Although my religious beliefs also prohibit meat but that has now become a secondary reason because of my experiments with meat.

Yes, on the face of it, meat seems to be very nutritious and everything but I have found out (only by experiments on myself, no scientific proof) that it is really a bad food. Your mouth stinks, your toilet stinks (I believe that both of these are symptoms of something rotten going on in your body), you are filled with guilt whenever you see/hear/read about ill treatment of animals (does not apply to some people).

Contrary to what non-vagans say, I found meat to be totally tasteless. In fact, all the taste that you get in a non-vegan dish is due to various spices (vegs). I mean, just try eating a raw cabbage, or a capsicum, or a carrot, or any veg stuff, it has a beautiful flavor of its own.

Most importantly, I feel lighter and more energetic when I eat veg. Another observation, which I am sure many will not accept, is that I feel more creative and my brain works faster on a veg diet. It also enhances a +ive and a satisfying feeling. I know there is no measure to these things. Try it out is all I can say.

I have another theory about non-veg diet. Why is cannibalism bad (a scientifically proven fact)? While you can find detailed technical reasons, I believe that the underlying concept is that in cannibalism, your food is genetically exactly the same as you, which causes problems. So I think, the more genetically apart you and your food is, the better. So I guess, eating fish is probably better than eating avians, which in turn is better than eating mammals. By this logic veg is the best food to eat. Again, just a theory.

OK, another theory: Our sense of smell is a highly advanced instrument that has evolved to differentiate betweeen good and bad food. Try smelling any raw veg and raw meat. I am not talking about rotten meat but normal meat. Meat stinks big time. What does that tell you?

BTW, it has been proven scientifically that human body is designed to digest veg as well as non-veg food. However, just because we can digest meat doesn't mean that we have to eat it if we know better.
Roger Nelson
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 21, 2002
Posts: 95
one of the interesting ideas toward support of vegeterian diet is compassion towards fellow living organism.

Being human we morally belive that once a life comes in to this world, consciously killing it is inhumane, as supported by catholics and anti-abortion groups, and ofcourse by social laws against murder.

This brings up a question that should we extend this moral law to animals?

I had read that in some form of buddhism they have this middle ground where meat can only qualify for eating only if the animal was not killed intentionally.( Example: deer gets killed by your van )
The above idea extends its compassion to animals.

well all this have made me hungry for some spicy chicken, I guess I will go and have some
S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

http://www.all-creatures.org/bible.html

This link also seems to be quite intresting.

Thanks
Venkatesh S
Anjali S Sharma
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 29, 2005
Posts: 279
Originally posted by Venkatesh Sai:
Hi,

There has been some long serious debates about eating non-veg food. I wanted to know what you people think about it. Don't you think killing animals for food is an act of violence?

Thanks
Venkatesh S


It is a criminal act. I don't know how killing and eating a animal is different from killing and eating a human being.

Take a chicken cut its head using a knife...wow that is so human...
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Ram Bhakt,

I agree with what you say..I think there is a direct corelation between the food you eat and your thoughts and actions....
When you eat vegetarian food you are free of any guilty feeling..You dont get cheap thoughts...

Though I am not religious I firmly believe in the hindu philosophy of Karma..
You will definitely reap what you sow......
S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

I always wonder why people say that killing animals for food is not at all violence when you can see the creature bleeding to death in front of your eyes!!
Chetan Parekh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 3636
To be a vegetarian or a non vegetarian is a choice of individual. But being a vegetarian and criticize non-vegetarianism is not nice � and vise versa. Everybody has their own belief and way of living and all are right at their land.

Bottom line :
If everyone eats their own potato chips, everything's gonna be alright.
- Ernest Friedman-Hill at the age of 8.


[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Chetan Parekh ]

My blood is tested +ve for Java.
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
Thirukural,One of the greatest master piece on ethics in Tamil literature written 2000 years back states 'How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?

The meat-eater's desire for meat drives another to kill and provide that meat. The act of the butcher begins with the desire of the consumer. Meat-eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion. When the individual's consciousness lifts and expands, he will abhor violence and not be able to even digest the meat, fish, fowl and eggs he was formerly consuming. India's greatest saints have confirmed that one cannot eat meat and live a peaceful, harmonious life. Man's appetite for meat inflicts devastating harm on the earth itself, stripping its precious forests to make way for pastures.

vegetarian families have far fewer problems than those who are not vegetarian. If children are raised as vegetarians, every day they are exposed to nonviolence as a principle of peace and compassion. Every day they are growing up they are remembering and being reminded to not kill. They won't even kill another creature to eat, to feed themselves. And if they won't kill another creature to feed themselves, they will be much less likely to do acts of violence against people.

Hinduism advocates vegetarianism because of the below reasons
1) The DHARMIC/SCRIPTURAL LAW reason

Ahimsa, the law of non injury, is the Hindu's first duty in fulfillment of his religious obligations to God and God's creation as defined by Vedic scripture.

2) The KARMIC CONSEQUENCES reason

All of our actions including our choice of food have karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.

3) The SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS reason

Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we ingest affects our consciousness, emotions and experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger, jealousy, fear, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of death, all of which are locked into the flesh of butchered creatures. For these reasons, shakaharis live in higher consciousness and mansaharis abide in lower consciousness.

4) The HEALTH reason

Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is easier to digest, provides a wider range of nutrients and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body. Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills. Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer, more refined and skin more beautiful.

5) The ECOLOGICAL reason

Planet earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient rain forests to create pasture lands for livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of meat in the human diet. No single decision that we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat. Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this decision for this reason and this reason alone

[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Rambo Prasad ]
[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Rambo Prasad ]
S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

I belive that whenever we make a choice we have a reason to make it.

It is not critisizing the people who eat non-veg. It is just asking them why did they make that choice? what drove them that way?

Thanks
Venkatesh S
[ March 13, 2006: Message edited by: Venkatesh Sai ]
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
1. The Hunger Argument against meat-eating

Much of the world's massive hunger problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating. The reasons: 1) livestock pasture needs cut drastically into land which could otherwise be used to grow food; 2) vast quantities of food which could feed humans is fed to livestock raised to produce meat.

This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die as a result of malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition every 2.3 seconds. One hundred million people could be adequately fed using the land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by a mere 10%.

Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people. Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S. is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.

One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250 pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16 pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed the hungry.

2. The Environmental Argument against meat-eating

Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating, including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rain forests and species extinction.

The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming, known as "the greenhouse effect," results primarily from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Three times more fossil fuels must be burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free diet. If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished.

Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and top soil loss. Both of these effects lead to diminished food production. Meat-eating is the number one driving force for the destruction of these forests. Two-hundred and sixty million acres of U.S. forest land has been cleared for cropland to produce the meat-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical rain forest is consumed to produce every quarter-pound of rain forest beef. An alarming 75% of all U.S. topsoil has been lost to date. Eighty-five percent of this loss is directly related to livestock raising.

Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species are eliminated due to destruction of tropical rain forests for meat grazing and other uses. The rate is growing yearly.

To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 million pounds of meat are imported annually from Central and South America. This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their forests to make more pasture land. The short-term gain ignores the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In effect these countries are being drained of their resources to put meat on the table of Americans while 75% of all Central American children under the age of five are undernourished.

3. The Cancer Argument against meat-eating

Those who eat flesh are far more likely to contract cancer than those following a vegetarian diet.

The risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week; 2.8 times greater for women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week; and 3.25 greater for women who eat butter and cheese 2 to 4 times a week as compared to once a week.

The risk of fatal ovarian cancer is three times greater for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week as compared with less than once a week.

The risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily as compared with sparingly or not at all.

4. The Cholesterol Argument against meat-eating
Here are facts showing that: 1) U.S. physicians are not sufficiently trained in the importance of the relation of diet to health; 2) meat-eaters ingest excessive amounts of cholesterol, making them dangerously susceptible to heart attacks.

It is strange, but true that U.S. physicians are as a rule ill-educated in the single most important factor of health, namely diet and nutrition. Of the 125 medical schools in the U.S., only 30 require their students to take a course in nutrition. The average nutrition training received by the average U.S. physician during four years in school is only 2.5 hours. Thus doctors in the U.S. are ill-equipped to advise their patients in minimizing foods, such as meat, that contain excessive amounts of cholesterol and are known causes of heart attack.

Heart attack is the most common cause of death in the U.S., killing one person every 45 seconds. The male meat-eater's risk of death from heart attack is 50%. The risk to men who eats no meat is 15%. Reducing one's consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10% reduces the risk of heart attack by 10%. Completely eliminating these products from one's diet reduces the risk of heart attack by 90%.

The average cholesterol consumption of a meat-centered diet is 210 milligrams per day. The chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol is 210 milligrams daily is greater than 50%.

5. The Natural Resources Argument against meat-eating

The world's natural resources are being rapidly depleted as a result of meat-eating.

Raising livestock for their meat is a very inefficient way of generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be expended to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and vegetables. For example, more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S. is consumed in livestock production. The amount of water used in production of the average cow is sufficient to float a destroyer (a large naval ship). While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are needed to produce a pound of California beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can produce 200 pounds of wheat. If this water cost were not subsidized by the government, the cheapest hamburger meat would cost more than $35 per pound.

Meat-eating is devouring oil reserves at an alarming rate. It takes nearly 78 calories of fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, etc.) energy to produce one calory of beef protein and only 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calory of soybean. If every human ate a meat-centered diet, the world's known oil reserves would last a mere 13 years. They would last 260 years if humans stopped eating meat altogether. That is 20 times longer, giving humanity ample time to develop alternative energy sources.

Thirty-three percent of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by the U.S. are devoted to the production of livestock, as compared with 2% to produce a complete vegetarian diet.

6. The Antibiotic Argument against meat-eating

Here are facts showing the dangers of eating meat because of the large amounts of antibiotics fed to livestock to control staphylococci (commonly called staph infections), which are becoming immune to these drugs at an alarming rate.

The animals that are being raised for meat in the United States are diseased. The livestock industry attempts to control this disease by feeding the animals antibiotics. Huge quantities of drugs go for this purpose. Of all antibiotics used in the U.S., 55% are fed to livestock.

But this is only partially effective because the bacteria that cause disease are becoming immune to the antibiotics. The percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin, for example, has grown from 13% in 1960 to 91% in 1988. These antibiotics and-or the bacteria they are intended to destroy reside in the meat that goes to market.

It is not healthy for humans to consume this meat. The response of the European Economic Community to the routine feeding of antibiotics to U.S. livestock was to ban the importation of U.S. meat. European buyers do not want to expose consumers to this serious health hazard. By comparison, U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries gave their full and complete support to the routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock, turning a blind eye to the threat of disease to the consumer.

7. The Pesticide Argument against meat-eating

Unknown to most meat-eaters, U.S.-produced meat contains dangerously high quantities of deadly pesticides.

The common belief is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture protects consumers' health through regular and thorough meat inspection. In reality, fewer than one out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues.

That these chemicals are indeed ingested by the meat-eater is proven by the following facts:

A. Ninety-nine percent of U.S. mother's milk contains significant levels of DDT. In stark contrast, only 8% of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT. This shows that the primary source of DDT is the meat ingested by the mothers.

B. Contamination of breast milk due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products found in meat-eating mothers versus non meat-eating mothers is 35 times higher.

C. The amount of the pesticide Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant is 9 times the permissible level.

8. The Ethical Argument against meat-eating

Many of those who have adopted a vegetarian diet have done so because of the ethical argument, either from reading about or personally experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the thousands of slaughterhouses in the U.S. and other countries, where animals suffer the cruel process of forced confinement, manipulation and violent death. Their pain and terror is beyond calculation.

The slaughterhouse is the final stop for animals raised for their flesh. These ghastly places, while little known to most meat-eaters, process enormous numbers of animals each years. In the U.S. alone, 660,000 animals are killed for meat every hour. A surprising quantity of meat is consumed by the meat-eater. The average per capita consumption of meat in the U.S., Canada and Australia is 200 pounds per year! The average American consumes in a 72-year lifetime approximately 11 cattle, 3 lambs and sheep, 23 hogs, 45 turkeys, 1,100 chickens and 862 pounds of fish! Bon appetite!

People who come in contact with slaughterhouses cannot help but be affected by what they see and hear. Those living nearby must daily experience the screams of terror and anger of the animals led to slaughter. Those working inside must also see and participate in the crimes of mayhem and murder. Most who choose this line of work are not on the job for long. Of all occupations in the U.S., slaughterhouse worker has the highest turnover rate. It also has the highest rate of on-the-job injury.

IV. Humans Have neither Fangs nor Claws

A ninth and most compelling argument against meat-eating is that humans are physiologically not suited for a carnivorous diet. The book Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism in the World Religions, summarizes this point of view as follows. "Many nutritionists, biologists and physiologists offer convincing evidence that humans are in fact not meant to eat flesh._" Here are seven facts in support of this view:

"Physiologically, people are more akin to plant-eaters, foragers and grazers, such as monkeys, elephants and cows, than to carnivora such as dogs, tigers and leopards.

"For example, carnivora do not sweat through their skin; body heat is controlled by rapid breathing and extrusion of the tongue. Vegetarian animals, on the other hand, have sweat pores for heat control and the elimination of impurities. "Carnivora have long teeth and claws for holding and killing prey; vegetarian animals have short teeth and no claws.

"The saliva of carnivora contains no ptyalin and cannot predigest starches; that of vegetarian animals contains ptyalin for the predigestion of starches.

"Flesh-eating animals secrete large quantities of hydrochloric acid to help dissolve bones; vegetarian animals secrete little hydrochloric acid.

"The jaws of carnivora only open in an up and down motion; those of vegetarian animals also move sideways for additional kinds of chewing.

"Carnivora must lap liquids (like a cat); vegetarian animals take liquids in by suction through the teeth.

"There are many such comparisons, and in each case humans fit the vegetarian physiognomy. From a strictly physiological perspective, then, there are strong arguments that humans are not suited to a fleshy diet."
agrah upadhyay
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 01, 2005
Posts: 579
Killing an animal is an act of violence. Cutting down a tree is an act of violence. Cutting wheat stalks is an act of violence. Plucking a fruit is an act of violence. Breaking a flower of it's stem is an act of violence. Hitting an innocend human being is an act of violence. Hitting a human being to stop him from harming an innocent human being is also an act of violence. Breaking a door is an act of violence. Breaking a door to get someone out of a burning building is also an act of violence

Not all acts of violence are bad.


Exactly what mine inference is too!
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

When you copy and paste it is nice if you include a source.
Rambo Prasad
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 23, 2006
Posts: 628
One more reason to be a Vegan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4801570.stm
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by David O'Meara:
When you copy and paste it is nice if you include a source.


I was about to say this


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
B.Sathish
Ranch Hand

Joined: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 372
Check this out. I know a few people who were transformed after reading this :

http://goveg.com
Chetan Parekh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 3636
I don�t know why all vegetarian people are trying to prove that eating non veg food is a crime and want to convert them into vegetarian.
David O'Meara
Rancher

Joined: Mar 06, 2001
Posts: 13459

...and that's kind of my point.

'B': yes, porn can be transforming (you haven't described your link, we have to assume the worst )
Jim Yingst
Wanderer
Sheriff

Joined: Jan 30, 2000
Posts: 18671
I tend to eat vegetarian whenever the price on vegetarians falls below $3.50/lb. Otherwise they're too lean and stringy to be worth it.


"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Pradeep bhatt
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 27, 2002
Posts: 8919

Indian Vegetarians have a very tough time finding good food to eat in foreign countries. Only raw vegatables to eat.


Groovy
S Venkatesh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Jun 27, 2005
Posts: 464

Originally posted by Chetan Parekh:
I don�t know why all vegetarian people are trying to prove that eating non veg food is a crime and want to convert them into vegetarian.


It is the individual who has to decide that and not anyone else. If you are feeling guilty then you are transforming
 
permaculture playing cards
 
subject: violence or non-violence