Please Help Stop These Cruelties To Animals!

[Gertrude]

Originally Posted by Captain Beefheart

Although technology satisifies most of this desire, eating meat is the nearest I'll get at a visceral level without sticking a spear into something.

You still did, although indirectly.

Originally Posted by Captain Beefheart

Do I feel bad for the animals at sum? Well yeah. For the most part, I think the "cruelty" of conditions meat animals live under is laziness and cheapness. We pump our meat animals full of synthetic and natural chemicals to induce further growth, easier fattening, and so on, but we simultaneously feed them the cheapest, least healthy mass-produced garbage we can aquire.

I find it cruel, yes, but it didn't at all turn me off of meat.

So what are you planning to do for them? I mean the animals.

Originally Posted by Blackmask

From an evolutionary standpoint we aren't really biologically designed to eat a lot of red meat or actually catch it in the first place. Being an omnivore could mean insects, small birds, maybe the occasional small rodent or fish, things a human could personally catch. It's unlikely bringing down a cow with our bare hands would be a hugely successful endeavor. If it wasn't for weapons & tools, spears, guns, sharpened stones, knives, slaughter houses our eating habits would be significantly different.

That is true, Captain Beefheart. As little children we had to be weaned to eat meat...that means we are not naturally born to chew on such stuff. Biblically, Adam was entrusted the whole world and until Noah no God-fearing person ate meat.

Health and Nutrition
Studies of human evolution have shown that our ancestors were vegetarian by nature. The structure of the human body is not suited for eating meat. This was demonstrated in an essay on comparative anatomy by Dr. G. S. Huntingen of Columbia University. He pointed out that carnivores have short small and large intestines. Their large intestine is characteristically very straight and smooth. In contrast, vegetarian animals have both a long small intestine and a long large intestine. Because of the low fiber content and high protein density of meat, the intestines do not require a long time to absorb nutrients; thus, the intestines of carnivores are shorter in length than those of vegetarian animals.
Humans, like other naturally vegetarian animals, have both a long small and large intestine. Together, our intestines are approximately twenty-eight feet (eight and a half meters) in length. The small intestine is folded back on itself many times, and its walls are convoluted, not smooth. Because they are longer than those found in carnivores, the meat we eat stays in our intestines for a longer period of time. Consequently, the meat can putrefy and create toxins. These toxins have been implicated as a cause of colon cancer, and they also increase the burden on the liver, which has the function of getting rid of toxins. This can cause cirrhosis and even cancer of the liver.

Meat contains a lot of urokinase protein and urea, which add to the burden on the kidneys, and can destroy kidney function. There are fourteen grams of urokinase protein in every pound of steak. If living cells are put into liquid urokinase protein, their metabolic function will degenerate. Furthermore, meat lacks cellulose or fiber, and lack of fiber can easily create constipation. It is known that constipation can cause rectal cancer or piles.

The cholesterol and saturated fats in flesh also create cardiovascular disorders. Cardiovascular disorders are the number one leading cause of death in the United States, and now in Formosa.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death. Experiments indicate that the burning and roasting of flesh creates a chemical element (Methylcholanthrene) which is a powerful carcinogen. Mice given this chemical develop cancers, such as bone tumors, cancer of the blood, cancer of the stomach, etc.

Research has shown that infant mice fed by a female mouse having breast cancer will also develop cancer. When human cancer cells were injected into animals, the animals also developed cancer. If the meat which we eat daily comes from animals that originally have such disorders, and we take them into our body, there is a good chance we will also get the diseases.

Most people assume that meat is clean and safe, that there are inspections done at all butcheries. There are far too many cattle, pigs, poultry, etc. killed for sale every day for each one to actually be examined. It's very difficult to check whether a piece of meat has cancer in it, let alone check every single animal. Currently, the meat industry just cuts off the head when it has a problem, or cuts off the leg which is diseased. Only the bad parts are removed and the rest is sold.

The famous vegetarian, Dr. J. H. Kellogg said, "When we eat vegetarian food, we don't have to worry about what kind of disease the food died of. This makes a joyful meal!"

There is yet another concern. Antibiotics as well as other drugs including steroids and growth hormones are either added to animal feed or injected directly into the animals. It has been reported that people eating these animals will absorb these drugs into their bodies. There is a possibility that antibiotics in meat are diminishing the effectiveness of antibiotics for human use.

There are some people who consider the vegetarian diet not sufficiently nourishing. An American surgical expert, Dr. Miller, practiced medicine for forty years in Formosa. He established a hospital there, where all the meals were vegetarian, for staff members as well as the patients. He said, "The mouse is one kind of animal which can support its life with both a vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet. If two mice are segregated, with one eating flesh and the other vegetarian food, we find that their growth and development are the same, but that the vegetarian mouse lives longer and has greater resistance to disease. Furthermore, when the two mice got sick, the vegetarian mouse recovered quicker." He then added, "The medicine given to us by modern science has improved greatly, but it can only treat illnesses. Food, however, can sustain our health." He pointed out that, "Food from plants is a more direct source of nutrition than meat. People eat animals, but the source of nutrition for the animals we eat is plants. The lives of most animals are short, and animals have nearly all the diseases that mankind has. It is very likely that the diseases of mankind come from eating the flesh of diseased animals. So, why don't people get their nutrition directly from plants?" Dr. Miller suggested that we only need cereals, beans and vegetables to get all the nourishment we need to maintain good health.

Many people have the idea that animal protein is 'superior' to plant protein because the former is considered a complete protein, and the latter is incomplete. The truth is that some plant proteins are complete, and that food combining can create complete proteins out of several incomplete protein foods.

In March 1988 the American Dietetic Association announced that: "It is the position of the ADA that vegetarian diets are healthful and nutritionally adequate when appropriately planned."

It is often falsely believed that meat eaters are stronger than vegetarians, but an experiment conducted by Professor Irving Fisher of Yale University on 32 vegetarians and 15 meat-eaters showed that vegetarians had more endurance than meat eaters. He had people hold out their arms for as long as possible. The outcome from the test was very clear. Among the 15 meat-eaters, only two persons could hold out their arms for fifteen to thirty minutes; however, among the 32 vegetarians, 22 persons held out their arms for fifteen to thirty minutes, 15 persons for over thirty minutes, 9 persons for over one hour, 4 persons for over two hours, and one vegetarian held his arms out for over three hours.

Many long distance track athletes keep a vegetarian diet for the time preceding competitions. Dr. Barbara More, an expert in vegetarian therapy, completed a one hundred and ten mile race in twenty-seven hours and thirty minutes. A woman of fifty-six years of age, she broke all the records held by young men. "I want to be an example to show that people who take a whole vegetarian diet will enjoy a strong body, a clear mind, and a purified life."

Does the vegetarian get enough protein in his diet? The World Health Organization recommends that 4.5% of daily calories be derived from protein. Wheat has 17% of it's calories as protein, broccoli has 45% and rice has 8%. It is very easy to have a protein rich diet without eating meat. With the additional benefit of avoiding the many diseases caused by high fat diets such as heart disease and many cancers, vegetarianism is clearly the superior choice.

The relationship between over consumption of meat, and other animal source foods containing high levels of saturated fats, and heart disease, breast cancer, colon cancer and strokes has been proven. Other diseases which are often prevented and sometimes cured by a low fat vegetarian diet include: kidney stones, prostate cancer, diabetes, peptic ulcers, gallstones, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis, gum disease, acne, pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, hypoglycemia, constipation, diverticulosis, hypertension, osteoporosis, ovarian cancer, hemorrhoids, obesity, and asthma.

There is no greater personal health risk than eating meat, aside from smoking.

source

[Captain Beefheart]

I believe we are designed for meat digesting (incicors, key stomach acids hat digest meat exclusively). Humans were able to evolve our preposterously huge brains ONLY by making meat the largest part of our diet. Since that time (usually ascribed to either Australopithecines or Homo ergaster)

The worst part of all this is this catch-22 which you don't seem to understand or acknowledge. If we became PURELY vegetarians, we would have to take up far more land for farming than we do now, grow almost nothing but high-protein legumes, and do this without destroying the environment with chemical pesticides/fertilizers. These chemicals will become absolutely essential because we can never allow a crop failure, or starvation will immediately ensue.

Not to mention the obvious fact that in order to facilitate this huge increase in produce, we will have to take FAR more land from its natural state than that currently in use, and this will likely result in a large mass extinction event of a great many large mammals. Meat allows you produce many times the amount of food per acre than ANY plant and will permit the continued existence of these animals into the foreseeable future. The fact of the matter is, meat is (by far) more nutritionally dense than plants, converts inedible cellulose into edible protein, and does so on land that wouldn't grow a consistent crop of rocks.

I understand and sympathize with your desire not to kill living creatures, but it's really progress or even humaneto kill untold billions of creatures currently occupying the land we would have to take to grow enough plants to feed ourselves, or worse to attempt it, fail, and thereby commit suicide to avoid the necessity of killing animals that would not exist if not for our help?

[Blackmask]

The best evidence we have all points to the fact that our "expensive" (and grossly large brains by animal standards) couldn't under any conceivable circumstance ever develop if we had remained (essentially) herbivores.

Even today there are severe problems that can arise from the vegan approach. It turns out to be harder than most people realize to get complete proteins from plants, not impossible, but not easy either.

As already agreed, from an evolution perspective humans are omnivores. As far as getting sufficient protein though, insects, something the somewhat human hunting machine could catch, are much higher in protein and iron, lower in fat, than a slab of beef. Eating insects probably falls outside the being a vegan ideal but biologically it would make more sense that insects be the staple protein source for humans rather than red meat.

[Blackmask]

Meat allows you produce many times the amount of food per acre than ANY plant and will permit the continued existence of these animals into the foreseeable future.

Where did you get this from? I've never seen anything to suggest animal based products are better land and resource use than crop growing, not even from the meat industries. In fact it's the opposite and I've even seen it suggested that if land use was converted from meat production to crop there is enough agricultural land already available to feed the world. (Sorry, not sure where or when I saw this)

Cultivation of soya yields 356 pounds of protein per acre, rice yields 265 pounds of protein per acre, corn yields 211 pounds of protein per acre, and legumes yield 192 pounds of protein per acre. In contrast, milk production yields only 82 pounds of protein per acre, egg production yields only 78 pounds of protein per acre, and meat production yields only 45 pounds of protein per acre with beef being the most wasteful at only 20 pounds of protein per acre.

Soya requires 2000 liters of water to produce a kilogram of food, while rice requires 1912 liters and potatoes require 500 liters per kilogram of food produced. In contrast, the production of chicken meat requires 3500 liters of water per kilogram of food and the production of beef requires 100,000 liters of water per kilogram of food.

Source
Similar info, different site

[Captain Beefheart]

Plants are simply not nutritious enough, certainly not in the wild to support such an inordinate deference of total energy intake to the growth of one organ. And it would have had to do so at the expense of all other organ systems had it happened without proper nutritional support.

We most definately come equipped with meat cutters and plant grinders. So I think we are SUPPOSED to eat both.

[Jocasta]

Originally Posted by Gertrude

Not everybody have access to wild game; there is usually a limit to how much can be hunted and it’s seasonal. Some wild game animals are captive bred and then released--something I find unfair again to animals. Plus, the wild game animals are usually food of the big game and I guess we’re robbing them of their catch. Puffins starve when their fish stores went low, so would bears, jaguars, and lions if we hunt their prey.

I thought this was about animal cruelty and not sustainability.
So you want to end animal cruelty by stopping everyone eating meat; that's your great idea. But that's just not going to happen.
Take the example of Beefheart; a free thinking, intelligent person who's actually seen examples of bad farming practices and is still going to eat meat.
Surely fighting for better care in farming is going to help protect more animals than the hard line vegan approach that is only going to alienate most people.
With thought for animal welfare, eating less meat and considering managed hunting you might stand a better chance.

Taking wild food does not have to mean you have access to wild animals, wild rabbit, hare, grouse, pheasant, venison, pigeon, etc are all available in some outlets, like butchers and farm shops.

So, I ask you, what are you going to do to help animals?

[Gertrude]

Originally Posted by Captain Beefheart

We most definately come equipped with meat cutters and plant grinders. So I think we are SUPPOSED to eat both.

Here is my last defense article I would like you to read that humans are vegetarians by nature. Please read it here.

Originally Posted by Jocasta

I thought this was about animal cruelty and not sustainability.
So you want to end animal cruelty by stopping everyone eating meat; that's your great idea. But that's just not going to happen.
Take the example of Beefheart; a free thinking, intelligent person who's actually seen examples of bad farming practices and is still going to eat meat.
Surely fighting for better care in farming is going to help protect more animals than the hard line vegan approach that is only going to alienate most people.
With thought for animal welfare, eating less meat and considering managed hunting you might stand a better chance.

Taking wild food does not have to mean you have access to wild animals, wild rabbit, hare, grouse, pheasant, venison, pigeon, etc are all available in some outlets, like butchers and farm shops.

So, I ask you, what are you going to do to help animals?

"I thought this was about animal cruelty and not sustainability." It's about animal cruelty and the topics that arise.

"Take the example of Beefheart; a free thinking, intelligent person who's actually seen examples of bad farming practices and is still going to eat meat." It's a matter of conditioning, just like quitting smoking or drinking.

"Surely fighting for better care in farming is going to help protect more animals than the hard line vegan approach that is only going to alienate most people." I don't mean to alienate anyone...rather, it's a suggestion.

"some outlets" yes, that's what I mean, not available to eveyone..

"So, I ask you, what are you going to do to help animals?" I'm doing my part right now and everyday when I boycott meat products.

[Jocasta]

It's a matter of conditioning, just like quitting smoking or drinking.

Exactly, so you have to give people motivation to stop eating meat but you haven't. Bullying and trying to make people feel guilty doesn't work.

I don't mean to alienate anyone...rather, it's a suggestion.

I'm not just referring to you but the peta zealots.

And I never suggested everyone should eat wild game but it IS available if you look for it.

The hard line vegan approach is not working; meat eaters will continue to eat meat and unless you campaign for animal welfare, farm animals will suffer.

I'm doing my part right now and everyday when I boycott meat products.

And I cancel you out by continuing to eat meat... in fact as I cook for 4 people, I'm beating you 4 to 1. (insert annoying smilie here)

[Blackmask]

PETA are fanatics that do more harm than good by spouting false information so anything true they do say is lost by questionable credibility.

Gertrude, if you are seriously interested in supporting animal welfare and improving conditions etc then join a group like WSPA.

[Jocasta]

the peta zealots.

Originally Posted by Blackmask

PETA are fanatics

Indeed.

[Gertrude]

Originally Posted by Captain Beefheart

The worst part of all this is this catch-22 which you don't seem to understand or acknowledge. If we became PURELY vegetarians, we would have to take up far more land for farming than we do now, grow almost nothing but high-protein legumes, and do this without destroying the environment with chemical pesticides/fertilizers. These chemicals will become absolutely essential because we can never allow a crop failure, or starvation will immediately ensue.

Not to mention the obvious fact that in order to facilitate this huge increase in produce, we will have to take FAR more land from its natural state than that currently in use, and this will likely result in a large mass extinction event of a great many large mammals. Meat allows you produce many times the amount of food per acre than ANY plant and will permit the continued existence of these animals into the foreseeable future. The fact of the matter is, meat is (by far) more nutritionally dense than plants, converts inedible cellulose into edible protein, and does so on land that wouldn't grow a consistent crop of rocks.

I nearly passed over this. However, that is a common misconception. Don’t you know that the bulk of corn grown in the U.S. is made into livestock feed? Add to this American surplus grain, the peanuts fed to hogs, et cetera. All we have to do is to convert all these into what we’ll be eating without unduly increasing farmland expansion, pesticide usage, or destruction of habitats.

Originally Posted by Jocasta

So you want to end animal cruelty by stopping everyone eating meat; that's your great idea. But that's just not going to happen.

My great idea? Not totally. This train of thought has been around ever since the Franciscan Minims came into being, even presumably before.

I am not a PETA volunteer; I am independent of any organization. I just used the PETA videos to demonstrate animal farming cruelty. Did I bully anyone? Please tell me who.Quote my words, please. And I did give motivation to people, like health benefits, etc. I am campaigning for animal welfare,otherwise what else am I doing here? If you felt guilty eating meat that is your conscience. And you can continue to eat meat if that’s how you want it, but in no way do you help the animals in doing so. I am not saying eating meat is entirely bad, but it is the most non violent protest to animal cruelty.

[Jocasta]

Where did I say you used bullying tactics? Again that is a reference to the Peta types and you'll notice I said "trying to make people feel guilty"; there's no indication it's worked on me.

And you can continue to eat meat if that’s how you want it, but in no way do you help the animals in doing so.

Of course I do by sourcing meat from animals that have been reared and slaughtered with care and consideration. You seem to have missed the point about animal welfare. What's a better outcome; for 1000 people to start buying farm assured meat or for 1 person to give up all meat and meat products entirely?
I think your answer will expose your real motives.
(place annoying smilie here)

[Gertrude]

Originally Posted by Jocasta

Of course I do by sourcing meat from animals that have been reared and slaughtered with care and consideration. You seem to have missed the point about animal welfare. What's a better outcome; for 1000 people to start buying farm assured meat or for 1 person to give up all meat and meat products entirely?
I think your answer will expose your real motives.
(place annoying smilie here)

Summing it up, Jocasta, let us consider the three options you suggested.

1) Eat healthy, happy farm animals.
2) Eat wild game.
3) Eat less meat.

If everybody did option 1 I have already stated my side here.
If we opted for No.2, there is a negative impact as explained in this post.
Suggestion 3 would seem best, but if we examine it more closely there lies the possibility that as time goes by people might forget what they’re fighting for. They can lose sight of their goal and revert back to their old eating habits.
So as you can see, veganism is the best position to take, if you care for all animals in general.

It saddens me that some persons have such a distorted picture of us vegans. And since most PETA volunteers are vegans, I speak for PETA, too. You call them fanatics and zealots, yet if they did not stalk on these animal rights violators, none of these cruelties would have been brought to light and animals would continue to suffer in obscurity.

I know that some PETA principles are misguided but their overall philosophy is good.

Jocasta, I understand that you want to serve your family meat using any of the three options stated above. I respect your stand but it remains not good enough.

Originally Posted by Jocasta

Where did I say you used bullying tactics? Again that is a reference to the Peta types and you'll notice I said "trying to make people feel guilty"; there's no indication it's worked on me.

Here

Exactly, so you have to give people motivation to stop eating meat but you haven't. Bullying and trying to make people feel guilty doesn't work.

You implied me on this, otherwise you shouldn’t have used the word “you” in the first sentence; you never mentioned PETA here.

[Jocasta]

I'm not getting into an discussion on grammar with someone who uses silly smiles at the end of each argument to express how they really feel.

I respect your stand but it remains not good enough.

And there lies the problem with evangelical vegetarians; only giving up all meat is "good enough" despite their claim it's animal rights that are their main cause.
I'll ask you again;
What's a better outcome; for 1000 people to start buying farm assured meat or for 1 person to give up all meat and meat products entirely?

And let me state this is not an attack on all vegetarians; my sister hasn't eat meat for getting on for 30 years, yet she has never tried to convert anyone, including her husband and kids. In return I respect her views and often cook for her along with the rest of our extended, meat eating family.

[Plastic Flute]

Animals do not have have souls. They were put here for humans.

[darko.]

the maasai have no, from what I have found, incidences of cancer, or even high cholesterol or heart disease

their diet is mainly wild game, cattle and milk.

though recently they've included grain. I wonder how that will affect them within the next 50 years or so.

MEAT DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER

studies showing americans who have a high meat high fat diet are more likely to get cancer do not show that americans who have a high meat high fat diet are mroe likely to get cancer. they show that the hormones shot into these poor animals are giving people cancer.

as for meat being necessary for health i point you to this man

http://www.charliesgym.info/wst_page4.php
http://www.charliesgym.info/wst_page2.html

he eats nothing but fruits and vegetables and is in excellent shape, proving wrong all the "you must eat tons of protein to gain muscle!" creatine devourerers

keep in mind that the vast majority of "experts" are full of **** and that the "academic community" very little interest in hearing or funding studies that prove them wrong.