Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,779,335 times
Reputation: 7185
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by mg420
ADA releases updated position paper on vegetarian diets:
"Vegetarian diets are often associated with health advantages including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, according to ADA's position. "Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet."
I certainly agree with these statements, but how fair is it to contrast a group of people who necessarily adhere to a dietary discipline against America-at-Large.
I'm not sure that the study would look quite as impressive if a population of vegetarians were contrasted against a population of omnivores who have a similar level of dietary discretion. Thoughts?
I certainly agree with these statements, but how fair is it to contrast a group of people who necessarily adhere to a dietary discipline against America-at-Large.
I'm not sure that the study would look quite as impressive if a population of vegetarians were contrasted against a population of omnivores who have a similar level of dietary discretion. Thoughts?
Well, that would be like comparing apples and oranges. LOL.
By ducks, geese, dove or quail? None that I am aware of by direct action.
If you read carefully you may deduce that I'm saying "IT ISN'T THAT EASY TO KILL THE BIRDS".
Actually, you said the fight between you and your gun against the bird was "fair" because you had to work a bit to murder the birds.
Again, I ask you - how many migratory birds have killed hunters?
how many birds have killed wolves? how many baby zebras have killed lions? are you saying that hunters can't hunt unless the hunter and prey are evenly matched?
and drop the "murder" spiel, not unless you want to be excused of murdering some carrots and wheat (least I checked, fruits and vegetables were alive). humans are murdered. these animals are hunted. end result is the same, but the context is much different, as you likely know. why do some vegetarians (not ALL) try to make those who eat meat and those who hunt for their own food somehow akin to violent mass murders (who the heck bought up Jeffrey Dahmer into this conversation? seriously...)
and what's up w/ this fairness thing? who said it had to be fair. it should be humane, but the two aren't the same. is it fair to use a knife to cut a melon open since human teeth wouldn't be able to do so otherwise? if you want to talk about fair, well, birds, last I checked, could fly. plenty of chances to escape. unless the prey animals are being gathered up into small pens and made an easy target, these animals have more than a fighting chance of escaping the average hunter. the fact that we humans use tools to make our work easier doesn't make it less fair. unless you're one of those vegetarians that believe people should eat any meat they can't catch and kill w/ their own bare hands and rudimentary tools. in that case, vegetarians shouldn't eat bread, pasta, and any processed item not made w/ rudimentary tools and any produce not harvested w/ their own hands
I certainly agree with these statements, but how fair is it to contrast a group of people who necessarily adhere to a dietary discipline against America-at-Large.
I'm not sure that the study would look quite as impressive if a population of vegetarians were contrasted against a population of omnivores who have a similar level of dietary discretion. Thoughts?
I agree. I'm still waiting for the study that shows eating a sensible amount of meat is bad for you. not talking about how overeating meat is bad for you (since the above study assumes vegetarians aren't overeating dairy products or unhealthy processed products). again, meat by itself is not bad for you and will NOT make you more prone to any disease or cancer. over consumption and the quality of the meat is what leads to that problem
how many birds have killed wolves? how many baby zebras have killed lions? are you saying that hunters can't hunt unless the hunter and prey are evenly matched?
and drop the "murder" spiel, not unless you want to be excused of murdering some carrots and wheat (least I checked, fruits and vegetables were alive).
Animals have souls like humans do. Vegetables do not.
Animals nurture their young, vegetables do not.
Animals form emotional attachments like humans do.
Animals feel pain and suffer when hurt.
Animals entering slaughterhouses feel terror. They struggle against death. Vegetables do not.
how many birds have killed wolves? how many baby zebras have killed lions? are you saying that hunters can't hunt unless the hunter and prey are evenly matched?
What happens in the animal kingdom is natural and normal.
They are part of the normal food chain WITHOUT USING GUNS.
As a vegetarian and veterinary technician, I have no problem with others hunting as long as it's done humanely. If I were an animal I would much rather live a natural, free life and die suddenly by a bullet than live penned up on a factory farm until it was time to be slaughtered. Just my $0.02.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,779,335 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apples&Oranges
Actually, you said the fight between you and your gun against the bird was "fair" because you had to work a bit to murder the birds.
Again, I ask you - how many migratory birds have killed hunters?
Hunters = 100% kill
Birds = 0% kill
Doesn't look very fair to me.
I'll repeat that I do not know of any direct action by game birds that has resulted in a hunter's death. However, I'm quite certain that if you were so inclined (however unlikely) and put your utmost effort into going out and harvesting a single duck in a legal and sportsmanlike fashion, you would find yourself quite unable to do so. An average human without hunting skill, training or any knowledge of the quarry is actually at a large disadvantage. Looks pretty fair to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
