Responding to questions and comments from non-vegans

[veganful]

I hate to be the stick in the mud since I am new to this site but I tend to dislike Peta. Their notions are great but their vehicles or means of getting their point across I tend to disagree.

peace,
Ileana

[tails4wagging]

Must admit I was a little disappointed last year with them at storming on the stage at Crufts it did not go down well at all. Meanwhile, outside crufts we were helping Uncaged with a peaceful protest against IAMS/EUKANUBA. It was a wonder that crufts allowed Uncaged back this year following that display from PETA last year. It did not do any good towards the cause.

[snivelingchild]

I tend to see alot of people confusinf PETA themselves with PETA activists. Tails, obviously I haven't heard of that event here. Was that actually organized by PETA, or was it someone who was a PETA activist? There is quite a difference in the two, and the stuff PETA organized itself is almost always (everything I've seen at least) peaceful and informative, where their main priority is educating people. Every time an AR activist does something and they happen to be a PETA member, it gets put in the newspaper headlines as a "PETA activist" does something, which makes it seem like the organization did it, which is just not the case most of the time. The only things I've seen them organize is tofu hot dog stands, naked people wrapped in those meat packaging things, and the like.

[veganful]

Well yeah but the most obvious one to me is using the female body to sell the benefits of animals. Isn't the female body objectified enough?

Both vegan and femminist,
Ileana

[snivelingchild]

That is true, but in the case of the Lettuce Ladies, Pam Anderson was one, and it is plausible it was her idea, since she's used to doing things like that. One could argue about things like the celebrities posng nude, since objectifying implies (in my mind) that the naked bodies are being used for thoughts of sex to grab attention, and I find the posters they do not to be sexual at all, though that does not scew the fact that they are doing it as a shock tactic to catch people's attention, which any protest is designed to do. Also, many men do these posters as well, so they are using male and female bodies to grab attention. Maybe most other people see them as sexual, though.

[tails4wagging]

It was organised event by PETA, about five of them with a banner ran onto the arena when the judging was taking place.

[Stu]

On a completely unrelated forum, an argument has broken out about vegetarianism/veganism. It’s interesting because it’s a dumb videogames forum, and some of the kids on there are actually showing an interest and partaking in the discussion.

But this guy (Geobau) has come along and is really stirring things up. He seems to be a staunch meat-eater, and simply will not back down one inch. He is also very clever.

To be frank, I don’t understand some of the terminology he is using, so I can’t respond to some of his points adequately. So therefore, the kids who are showing an interest, are getting swayed by his scientific arguments.

I was wondering if any of you guys are in a better position that me, to answer his points. I’ll posts the ‘tough’ ones below, and if any of you can help, that’d be great!

Thanks in advance.


“I have incisors. I have two eyes in the front of my head. I have the ability to walk erect, and thus am able to spot prey from a farther distance. My body requires the nutrition from meat, unless I pop pills all day. I am the ultimate preditory omnivore that nature has created.”


“Gorillas have 8 lessened incisors that are primarily designed to deal with smaller fare, like bugs, and defense. Homosapiens have incisors that are capable of rending flesh and only posess partial bipedality. Those who claim the human body was NOT meant for an omnivorous life can go ahead and be vegan, but they'd better not pop any supplements around me-- after all, they derive all they need from plant life, right?

The human body requires more energy to operate (more elongated, more heat loss, more weight support), and would logically need a commensurate increase in energy consumption. Gorillas posess partial bipedality, not full. Their pelvic structure is made to support four-legged ambling- part of the reason their babies are born more developed. As a general rule, the more erect the species, the more helpless the babies. They must be born before their heads get too developed to fit through the sleek pelvis of a biped.

The leafy greens consumed by gorillas provide nutrients and the caloric intake they would need, however they also eat all freakin' day. Human being stumbled on a more compact energy source hundreds of thousands of years ago, and have evolved to a more heightened state because of it. We don't need to devolve because we feel guilt.”


“Vegans often argue that the human body doesn't need meat to survive, yet they have to pop supplements. If the body didn't NEED these supplements, then they'd have a counter to the argument, but it does, and they don't. The body needs nutrients and especially amino acids in meat that you WON'T FIND in vegetables, and thus it was more-than-likely designed to work optimally with their inclusion in our diets.

We also must take into account that one could not pick and choose fuits and vegetables from around the globe back when we evolved this way. We didn't cultivate soy. We couldn't get pumpkin seeds for protein. We couldn't down handfulls of flax. We had what was around us, which was admittedly sparse in winters, and we had animals. We got our Omega-3 fatty acids from elk and deer that grazed, not from some wünder-plant that popped up through the snow and sprouted opaque pills.

Our bodies have been dependant on meat to survive for hundreds of thousands of years. You simply cannot deny it if you wish to have any realistic clout. I understand that many people choose to make political/religious statements with their vegatarianism, and that's fine for them. But who am I to deny my design?”

[Korn]

My body requires the nutrition from meat, unless I pop pills all day.This is wrong, and have been proven wrong many times - by meat eaters! Ask him what nutrients he believes he'll find in meat that he doesn't find in plants!



Homosapiens have incisors that are capable of rending flesh and only posess partial bipedality.
Human teeth are capable of chew and tear apart a lot of things, but that doesn't mean that we're meant to chew, tear apart, let alone eat all we can destroy with our teeth!

We have a post about the anatomy of herbivores vs. omnivores here: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1329&highlight=omnivores


Those who claim the human body was NOT meant for an omnivorous life can go ahead and be vegan, but they'd better not pop any supplements around me-- after all, they derive all they need from plant life, right? Many health 'experts' now recommended that ALL people eat supplements, not only vegans. People over 50-60 years ahve been recommended to take B12 for a long time, but now it shows up that a lot more meat eaters are nutrient deficient that we used to think - not only elderly, sick or pregnant women. An average vegan might be deficient in thee nutrients, but an average meat eater is deficient in seven, according to a recent study (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24&highlight=deficient). Does he consider it unnatural to become pregnant? To become more than 55? (I agree with him, I don't think it's natural to eat supplements, and lots of vegans don't and still have no health problems, but we must not forget that we don't live in a 'natural' world any longer).

The difference between a healthy vegan diet and a meat based diet essentially the amount of B12. The way most of us live, including vegans, we expose ourselves to various factors that prohibit intake, reduce availability and also destroy absorbed B12 daily. Since coffee, amalgam, sugar, stress, chlorinated water, vaccines, tobacco, alcohol and many, many other things reduce B12, and plants contain less B12 than people or animals who have been eating plants (since we store B12), vegans (and meat eaters) must make sure they get enough B12. Maybe 70-80% of vegans who do not take supplements are low in B12, compared to 30-40% meat-eaters who are low in B12. Since we don't eat others blood and flesh, our reserves of B12 are of course lower than people who do so, and we are therefore more vulnerable in times like these were B12 levels in soil, plants and water are at risk due to our 'civilized' ways of living. By the way, I've got less money than someone who constantly are robbing banks as well! Does that make it ethical correct or natural to rob banks? ;) Omnis are robbing the B12 reserves of other beings, so they are 'richer' in B12. But not rich enough, so just consuming more B12 (from animals) isn't a good enough solution anyways, even for people who don't mind killing animals.

Many studies indicate that if we would live a healthy, natural life on a planet that didn't kill destroy B12 in food, soil and water, vegans would have more than enough B12 (and need less B12 than people on traditional diet). So the B12 issue isn't an argument against eating vegan food, it's an argument against polluting ourselves and the world we live in.

Now, what if my conclusions after reading everything I've come across about vegan diet and nutrients/B12 for many years are... plain wrong? That's where the difference between nature and culture comes in. Humans are not born with fur. It gets cold at night. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it snows - at least where I live. Does that mean that we are meant to freeze? No. We're probably 'designed' to live closer to Equator, but we're definitely meant to cultivate nature, for example by growing/collecting cotton, make clothes, build houses with roofs and so on. Even in warm climates it gets cold at night.

Theoretically, maybe we're even 'meant to' cultivate vegan B12 (the same way B12 is cultivated on the surface of molasses, in order to make B12 supplements) – and use this cultivated B12 in our food. Some people insist that ie. kefir in itself isn't necessarily an animal product, and that vegan kefir milk, containing lots of B12, can be made by adding kefir to rice or soy milk. There are several ways to produce/cultivate B12 without killing/harming anyone.

What is the main difference between all the strong, healthy animals that survive well on plants, and humans? They are in close touch with nature, they don't expose themselves to all the silly things we do, they get a lot of fresh air and sun, and they (drum roll, please) eat fresh, uncooked, unfrozen, plants that have not been exposed much to chlorinated water from copper tubes.

Does this guy walked naked around in rain or snow? Probably not. He is using the ability human beings are born with, to cultivate tools, create clothes and roofs. What would be wrong with cultivate food as well? I bet he is cooking it? Freezing it? Maybe he even eats food that does naturally grow where he lives, or out-of season-food? That's all examples of cultivating, but cultivating in a way that kills B12. Why is cultivating B12 worse than cultivating B12-killers?

I'd say that he is triple-wrong:
A) Un-destroyed nature contains a lot of B12, so a discussion about what is natural and not can't be based on a planet that is actively killing B12 in dozens of different ways.
B) Humans are able to, and need to 'cultivate'.
C) Now, if A and B would be only nonsense from my side, and this guy really is against 'cultivation' (ask him to send a pic of himself sleeping naked in the snow!) ;), he could possibly have an argument for eating either eating unfertilized eggs, or drink milk from cows (which are proven to have unhealthy effect on humans). Either way, he would have an argument for killing animals.

His argument that we need meat is also proven wrong many times, for example by the lives of many vegetarians that meat eaters consider both healthy, intelligent and strong.


3) “Vegans often argue that the human body doesn't need meat to survive, yet they have to pop supplements.

Wasn't this the same stuff he mentioned in 1) and 2)? ;)


The body needs nutrients and especially amino acids in meat that you WON'T FIND in vegetables, and thus it was more-than-likely designed to work optimally with their inclusion in our diets. What nutrients? We don't need amino acids that can't be found in plants. He doesn't know what he is talking about. Ask for documentation about these amino acids!


We also must take into account that one could not pick and choose fuits and vegetables from around the globe back when we evolved this way.
That's totally correct, and we couldn't catch or kill animals before we developed tools do do so either.


We didn't cultivate soy.
We didn't, and we didn't cultivate enough food to keep animal farms alive either - but the point is that we don't need soy to be vegans.


We couldn't get pumpkin seeds for protein.
We don't need pumkin seeds for protein! Pumkin seeds are rich in zinc, but there are other ways to get zink from plants as well (grains, legumes and nuts). Ask him if he ever have read a book about vegan nutrition...! ;)


We couldn't down handfulls of flax. That's true, and people, including meat eaters - had shorter lives. By finding out more about certain things we can get from certain sources, we probably can prolong our lives compared with how we lived back then. But does this mean that what we do NOW is natural, and what we did then was not natural? No. An average European is ill circa 10 years of his life, most of all he is sick at the end of his life. Is the goal to live as long as possible, regardless our health condition the last years? Not to me. I don't want to become 120 years old, an sick the last 30 years, just because I can. Nevertheless, people who don't eat meat do not live shorter than meat eaters, or are ill more often, so his points aren't actually valid.

Since most research on nutrition has been based on the fact that most people eat meat, there is far too little research on plant based sources. Most plant species (there are probably about 300,000 of them) has never been performed any research on. We can get Omega-3 from pumkin seeds, rapeseed/canola oil, hemp oil, walnuts, flax seeds/linseeds leafy green vegetables like purslana, perilla seed oil (http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=perilla+omega-3&btnG=Search), chia seeds and freshwater micro algae, but there are probably hundreds of other sources yet to be discovered.


We had what was around us, which was admittedly sparse in winters, and we had animals.
No. We didn't 'have' animals. We caught and/or killed them. What we 'had' around us were thousands of plant species, which we later cultivated when agriculture developed.


We got our Omega-3 fatty acids from elk and deer that grazed Did you ask him where he thinks all the animals he eat (probably plant eaters, all of them) gets their nutrition from? Or how often he eats elk and deer? Normally, fatty cold water fish are reported as good Omega-3 sources for non-vegans, but I can't see that finding fish deep down in a cold sea (or having fish farms) is a better solution than finding plants that contain Omega-3 (or grow them).


Our bodies have been dependant on meat to survive for hundreds of thousands of years.There have been millions, and still are millions, of people that have proven that we don't need meat, by living long, healthy lives as vegetarians. Most cultures have been eating meat, but that doesn't mean that they have been dependent on meat.

You could check this (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1194) thread, called 'Did humans always eat meat?'.


But who am I to deny my design?

Check his teeth - are they designed for killing animals? ;) See how well he can catch a bird, or a wild animal with four legs in high snow, with his bare hands. He can't fly, but can he kill an animal with his hands/nails? Does he run faster than deer? Is he stronger than a bear? Can he swim under water long enough to catch fish with his hands? Is he fast enough? Does he know of fish that are not slippery when wet? All he does, is to document that in order to live on an animal based diet, we needs tools, traps, weapons, farms: in short, we need to cultivate. Animal traps doesn't grow on trees. Now, what's wrong with cultivating nature to get B12?

Not that I think he would need it, if he would be living back then, where the water we drank, the soil, the surfaces of plants (that would be eaten fresh) all would contain B12. Maybe he couldn't buy flax seeds where he lives back then, but he couldn't buy microwave ovens either, water wasn't transported in copper tubes, he didn't have any amalgam in his teeth, and he wasn't exposed to pollution from cars or mercury from fish. Babies were breastfed often for several years, give them a much stronger nutrition base to start with. Maybe he couldn't even get tea, sugar coffee or tobacco where he lived, and therefore the conditions for nutrients like B12 to survive and be effective would be A LOT better than now.

There are 18,000 different kinds of legumes. Please ask him how many of these he knows the nutrient contents of - or at least, which of them that there has been performed any research on. Maybe he even only knows the names of 10 of them? That's 0.06% of all existing legumes! How can he know what nutrients they contain if he doesn't know their names? ;)

I have spent a little time on sites for kettle farmers, and it's interesting to see how much focus the need for supplements for animals gets. Maybe this guy can explain why it's OK to eat animals that are dependent on supplements (they even often add supplements, like cobalt, to the soil where they grow food for these animals, plus a lot of other nasty things), and not to eat a plant based diet, that according to him makes us dependent on supplements? Why is B12 (or antibiotics!) added to meat / factory farm diet more natural than B12 added to his own diet?

Again, I agree that it's not natural to need a supplement on a diet that is considered to be a natural choice for humans. But he is doing a mistake buy just looking at a part of the whole picture.

B12 is a hot topic: we can get all the other nutrients we need without killing animals (including vitamin D from sunlight), and lots of other animals can get all the nutrients they get from plants. I find it extremely unlikely that humans were created so different from all other plant eating animals, and also that B12 is so different from all other nutrients (in regards to availability). Nature simply doesn't seem to be created that way. The problem is, that we (humans, not animals) have the ability to destroy nature, and are very active doing it

[Kim[ba]]

“I have incisors. I have two eyes in the front of my head. I have the ability to walk erect, and thus am able to spot prey from a farther distance. My body requires the nutrition from meat, unless I pop pills all day. I am the ultimate preditory omnivore that nature has created.”

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :D

Ask him to tell that to a TIGER! :)

Sorry man, but that's just funny. I can't really communicate with video gamers after living with my ex-roommate who was infatuated with video games.

[sophia]

The b12 thing is a pile of rubbish. That bugs me. We don't all need to take b12. I don't, I have spiralina and other algae, so I don't need it, and I have been tested to see if i'm deficient in anything and i'm not. And what was one of the first organisms to live on this planet? blue green algae. Ducks eat tonnes of it from lakes and im sure our ancestors did, so go tell that meat eating t**t where to go!

Phew!! :)

[Artichoke47]

Uhm, I wouldn't waste my time arguing with this idiot. He doesn't know the first thing about nutrition.

[veganful]

Well Porn Stars consent to having sex on camera or being photographed but does that mean they aren't objectified? For most people, especially those that aren't concerned with stereotypes and such don't think what the difference is. The thing is the naked female body is used what about her brain? Now adays as if that's all we have to get out point across. Our bodies makes a bigger statement than out brains. For guys to pose nude becomes a different matter.

[snaffler]

Originally Posted by Geobau
“I have incisors. I have two eyes in the front of my head. I have the ability to walk erect, and thus am able to spot prey from a farther distance. My body requires the nutrition from meat, unless I pop pills all day. I am the ultimate preditory omnivore that nature has created.”

Hmm ok so he is a preditor so perhaps we should ask how this modern preditor works, he spots his pray from a farther distance, so what he really means is he can see the Kebab shop from his house when it's not foggy.

Or does he mean if he is standing in Isle 4 he can see Isle 1 very clear if he stands on the canned fruit section display which enables him to spot the 3 chickens for a £5.00 in poultry section of Sainsbury.

So he can walk erect :D sorry Beavis & Butthead must come in now well he sounds like an "A" grade nob he is not wrong their.


"I am the ultimate preditory omnivore that nature has created"

Sadly nature must create one or two defects, but in time this process is corrected as nature through the laws of nature and Karma will punish those who should know better to take anothers life for personal gain and greed.

Nature deals with these attitudes by the onset of disease in most cases, those who only take from nature with a selfish attitude will meet those they abused on their journey through life. Although when they meet the spirits of those who's lives they have devoured this may not be in any obvious shape or form when it comes back for them.

He also says that he is the ultimate creature so why no mention of compasion and care as the ultimate creature will have respect for all life and all things living.

All though the native indians were meat eaters and used animals, in an odd way I doubt most us in our lives will never understand they still had a stong physical and spiritual connection with animals.

I hope that is of some use but I have used it in arguments.

If that fails I am ususaly blunt and offer them a £1.00 for a big mac and say go and F**k up your main vital organs and do us all a favour.

[Evilfluffbunny]

Originally Posted by Geobau
“I have incisors.

So do rabbits you tit! Incisors include all our front teeth as well as the canines, which incidentally are nothing at all compared to the canines of carnivores and most other omnivores - they are not capable of ripping the throat out of an animal or shearing through muscles and tendons. We also don't posses the carnassial teeth of predators which are essential for shearing meat. Our teeth are closer to that of grazing animals as are our jaws which can move side to side to help us grind food.

Humans also have very long intestinal tracts unlike carnivores which have very short ones. This is so the meat (which begins to decay rapidly) is passed out their system before it begins to rot, but if humans eat a lot of meat, it will start rotting before it's passed through the intestine. Meat eaters have 40% higher incidences of getting colon cancer compared to veggies.


Gorillas have 8 lessened incisors that are primarily designed to deal with smaller fare, like bugs, and defense.

Crap. He's obviously never seen a gorillas teeth - they're almost identical to ours with the exception of very large canines, which in the males, look like massive fangs.


The leafy greens consumed by gorillas provide nutrients and the caloric intake they would need, however they also eat all freakin' day. Human being stumbled on a more compact energy source hundreds of thousands of years ago

A totally irrelevant point. Vegans and veggies aren't living on leaves, tree bark and shoots like gorillas are. We don't need to eat more food than omnis to get our nutrients.


Our bodies have been dependant on meat to survive for hundreds of thousands of years. You simply cannot deny it if you wish to have any realistic clout. I understand that many people choose to make political/religious statements with their vegatarianism, and that's fine for them. But who am I to deny my design?”

Our bodies haven't been dependant on it, our lifestyles have (in the past), but we now have access to plant foods containing all the nutrients the body needs. Meat is not a necessity, it's an unnecessary luxury. If it's so natural than why must you cook it before it's safe and digestable? Why are you more likely to get cancer and heart disease if you eat it a lot? Seems a bit of a 'design' flaw to me!


Sorry if all that was a bit disjointed, I'm trying to do two things at once!

[Evilfluffbunny]

Grrr... I'm angry now! I hate these Meatards that try to be all condescending and scientific and make up 'facts' to try and justify their love of dead flesh. :mad:

[Shisha Fiend]

I have incisors. I have two eyes in the front of my head. I have the ability to walk erect, and thus am able to spot prey from a farther distance. My body requires the nutrition from meat, unless I pop pills all day. I am the ultimate preditory omnivore that nature has created.

Yeah, basically this is a load of crap, like Korn said has he ever tried to actually hunt without tools?
The ability to walk erect, scientists now think, is linked to our evolution as nomads- it allows us to keep running for long distances. That's why we're bald too, so we can lose heat more easily. How many other predators walk erect? It oesn't help at all, it allows prey to spot you a mile off. The 'ultimate predator' is camouflaged, about the same level as the surrounding vegetation, has enormously powerful senses of sight, hearing, and smell, and able to move silently and quickly, but doesn't have a massive amount of stamina. Humans are designed for stamina- long distance running. We are definitely not the ultimate predators. We do not check out against that list.

Also, as far as the design argument goes does he think people with glasses should not be able to eat meat? After all, left to nature they wouldn't be able to see it.

As for popping pills, that's nonsense. A lot of vegans don't.

Basically if he's going for the 'natural' argument, it's not natural to factory farm. End of. Even if you feel it's okay in principle to kill and eat animals, that's a far cry from what we do today.
And even when we were hunting back in prehistoric times, the main diet was plant based.

His basic argument though is 'we were designed to eat meat, therefore we cannot survive without the nutrients it provides'. So attack the premise and the conclusion:

Did we really evolve as meat eaters? A lot of people say no. Why do we have an appendix, for example? I think it's undeniable that we ate meat, but I don't believe it featured as heavily in our diet as it does today. I also don't see dairy consumption as something we were designed for at all.

Is it possible to survive without the nutrients meat provides? Firstly, does factory farmed meat really provide much nutrition anyway? Secondly, yes easily. Your existence, Stu, proves that.


Gorillas have 8 lessened incisors that are primarily designed to deal with smaller fare, like bugs, and defense. Homosapiens have incisors that are capable of rending flesh and only posess partial bipedality. Those who claim the human body was NOT meant for an omnivorous life can go ahead and be vegan, but they'd better not pop any supplements around me-- after all, they derive all they need from plant life, right?

The human body requires more energy to operate (more elongated, more heat loss, more weight support), and would logically need a commensurate increase in energy consumption. Gorillas posess partial bipedality, not full. Their pelvic structure is made to support four-legged ambling- part of the reason their babies are born more developed. As a general rule, the more erect the species, the more helpless the babies. They must be born before their heads get too developed to fit through the sleek pelvis of a biped.

The leafy greens consumed by gorillas provide nutrients and the caloric intake they would need, however they also eat all freakin' day. Human being stumbled on a more compact energy source hundreds of thousands of years ago, and have evolved to a more heightened state because of it. We don't need to devolve because we feel guilt

That's funny. He seems to think humans are the only animals who eat meat. Plenty of carnivores do it. It's completely false to claim that we have 'evolved to a more heightened state because of eating meat'. It just does't work. The amount of species that eat meat proves we did not evolve because of this.

His argument here is generally that vegetables do not provide as much energy as meat. This just isn't true. He sounds like he knows a bit of biology but anyone who has studied pyramids of biomass will know that the more efficient diet is a vegan one. Especially now with the whole 'feed the world' thing going on.


Vegans often argue that the human body doesn't need meat to survive, yet they have to pop supplements. If the body didn't NEED these supplements, then they'd have a counter to the argument, but it does, and they don't. The body needs nutrients and especially amino acids in meat that you WON'T FIND in vegetables, and thus it was more-than-likely designed to work optimally with their inclusion in our diets.

Plenty of vegans don't take supplements. Plenty of omnis do. Plenty of omnis are also deficient in their nutrient intake. It's more a case of eating a blanaced diet than anythign else.
As for his phobia of supplements, it's ridiculous. For example, it's recommended that every menstruating woman take iron tablets, whether vegan or not. It's not necessarily a sign of ill health or poor diet.

As for his 'eat what your body is designed for' I can only assume he forgoes milk and eggs? After all milk is the most unnatural of all our foods, we were definitely not designed to eat it, and the rate of lactose intolerance, heart attacks, strokes etc proves our bodies can't deal with it.
Never mind dairy leaches calcium from your bones.
And eggs obviously leave him chock full of unwanted cholesterol so he doesn't eat them either- his body was not designed for them.


We also must take into account that one could not pick and choose fuits and vegetables from around the globe back when we evolved this way. We didn't cultivate soy. We couldn't get pumpkin seeds for protein. We couldn't down handfulls of flax. We had what was around us, which was admittedly sparse in winters, and we had animals. We got our Omega-3 fatty acids from elk and deer that grazed, not from some wünder-plant that popped up through the snow and sprouted opaque pills.

So what? What bearing does that have on anything? After all we didn't have computers back in the day either, does that mean we should refrain from computer gaming because, what, it's unnatural?


Our bodies have been dependant on meat to survive for hundreds of thousands of years. You simply cannot deny it if you wish to have any realistic clout. I understand that many people choose to make political/religious statements with their vegatarianism, and that's fine for them. But who am I to deny my design

We were not 'dependent on meat to survive'. I'm sure even this guy would not argue that we were carnivores, we were omnivores which means we survived on a balance of plant and vegetable based nutrition.

However in a way I have to agree here, it is more than likely that we did eat meat and I don't think it's appropriate to deny this because it might not fit in with our current ethics. That just looks stubborn. I suppose the argument here is we now have a choice. After all we have survived without electricity for hundreds of thousands of years too, or lived in caves for hundreds of thousands of years. What does it matter?
Now, in this day and age, we have a choice. The choice is compassion for the animals or certain taste sensations. It seems pretty simple to me. What does it matter what our ancestors did? After all we don't worry about 'denying our design' whenever we get on the bus, take medication, build houses, or sit in front of a screen for hours. Unless he refuses to do these (and he obviously doesn't; he's posting on a gaming forum) his argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

[snivelingchild]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that consent makes it not objectification. I agree that spreading the image that all that is important about ANYBODY is their body, and some people may get that message from these poster. I was simply stating that I don't find any of them to be sexual, just art. I really don't think it is a different matter for men than women. Both genders have been are are continued to be seen as sex symbols. There is no separation except that you didn't tend to be men in this role as much in the past. There are horrible male stereotypes out there and programs like this (http://www.oxygen.com/MrRomance/about.aspx) . I don't view this issue as being the same as feminism (I am one for serious equal rights myself), but just a new trend in viewing people shallowly as only empty capsules. I see it happen all the time. The media contributes too. I see just as many instances of this regarding men as I do women, and both disgust me, because I hate to see people grow up with this false image of love and get hurt themselves because they didn't look for someone who lvoes and respects them. In any way, in a poster where the purpose is meant to grab attention, I think an artful display of something that catches an eye is displayed alot easier than someone's personaity, though I would be much more pleased if I saw them reach through artists for beautiful pictures that grabed attention and were full of beauty without having to use natural beauty. We need more things like that. :)

[Seaside]

I think almost every issue has been covered here, but I think you should suggest this scenario to your "friend" the "meatard" (I'm sorry if that seems rude, but I love it! Thanks Evilfluffbunny!:D).

Ask him to picture himself in Africa where man originated. Lets give him a break and let him have a spear. He sees a herd of wildebeast with those fantastic eyes of his while he is standing upright, but a pack of lionesses see the herd at the same time. He starts to charge the herd at the same time time as the lionesses. Who does he think will get there first? Both the wildebeasts and the lionesses can run faster then he can, and even with a spear he really is no match for a large herd of frightened wildebeast, so who is going to be easier to catch for the lionesses? Even if the lionesses choose a wildebeast over this guy, does he really think he's gonna walk right up and get some away from the lionesses, especially if they have cubs to feed? He isn't even going to be able to get the scraps away from the hyenas who are waiting to scavenge what's left. If he's lucky to get a bit of muscle meat, which is the least nutritious part of any animal, (the organs and stomach contents are the first choice amongst true carnivores) he gonna have to let it hang and rot for a while before he can get those incisors to work on it anyway, and he's gonna have to defend even that from the vultures and wild dogs. Some anthropologists do believe that our ancient, diminutive, four foot tall ancestors could not have acheived our present brain size without animal protein, but they claim it was obtained from scavenging bone marrow after all the real carnivores had gotten all the bests parts from the animals they hunted and killed. Eating meat isn't just about who is biologically suited to digest it, but who is the most successful at competing for it.

The human being is not the ultimate predator, we are the ultimate parasite!

[Robin]

Out of pure interest, what do you guys think of the F*ck for Forest (http://www.fuckforforest.com/) campaing? *WARNING*Adult content and nudity*WARNING*


Personally, this doesn't work with my feminist values, but I'm interest in others opinions because I'm pretty confused.

[veganful]

LOL maybe im just prudish but I am not really enjoying that. I will be the first one to admit I love sex but for some reason that kind of offends me.
ileana

[veganful]

I think I just realized why it offends me. The one that is being f*ckd. Or mostly shown pics of is the woman. I get the sense that the man has the control in these pics. To me its still porn.
ileana

[snaffler]

Out of pure interest, what do you guys think of the F*ck for Forest (http://www.fuckforforest.com/) campaing? *WARNING*Adult content and nudity*WARNING*


Personally, this doesn't work with my feminist values, but I'm interest in others opinions because I'm pretty confused.


Different I suppose but If you look at where they are based I think it is Germany and they are not as prude as the british about porn - I have nothing what so ever against porn as long as both parties involved are 100% consenting, also that the acts they choose to do are also 100% consenting from both or all parties in some cases. I must admit as graphic as the poster is on the site it's a good bit of art work.

I suppose it beats farting in the forest that would not help the o-zone layer.

[veganful]

I was actually kidding bout being prudish. Like I said before I love sex. However sex and objectifying gets tricky. At least for me... Its yet another "trend" to follow cuz lets face it sex is becoming more and more popular. I was born in Romania and now live the good ol' U S of A.

Ileana

[sylkan]

The biological human body is pretty incredible but the question is how much of our current daily lives are actually "what nature intended for us"? I love this discussion; it has been very funny to read. What this guy has to admit is that he likes meat and doesn't want to just come out say it. He would prefer to mask his selfish attitude behind a pack of lies intended to shore up his inadequate argument.

[tails4wagging]

just to let you know I have logged of from that forum, sick of being attacked !!