Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

love it so much you feed it commercial food

At 10/23/09 04:45 AM, ReiperX wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/04/nyregi on/debate-intensifies-on-ways-to-curb-gr owing-deer-population.html <very old article>

http://forums.qdma.com/showthread.php?t=
25528 <much newer one>

Now there are alternatives. Trapping and relocation (will be expensive and I doubt it would make much of a difference), trapping/euthanizing (same as hunting), trapping and fixing them (could cause hormonal issues in the wild, plus would become expensive)

My mother lives in the country with a large population of deer. In the past 10 years she's hit 5. I've almost hit 2 while visiting her. About five miles down the road where I live (I live in a fairly dense suburb of Nashville) they have serious problems every fall with deer/car collisions. I'm sure if you wanted you could even find out how much every year that the insurance company pays for such collisions.

Although, another alternative would be to reintroduce the deer's natural predators. This would be the most natural way to control the deer population, but I'm sure in many semi developed areas, having a number of cougar could pose a danger to children and small pets.

As far as the cows go, we keep breeding under control. If left in the wild without a natural predator, then their populations would also grow dramatically. I've only seen one cow/car wreck in my lifetime, but the person was life flighted from the scene.

I read the new article, and yeah, I can see it's a problem, although the article is for Arkansas. Like I said, is it happening in many other states? Anyway, the article says a couple of the causes are from recreational deer feeding and plants from gardens they like to eat. The feeding could be outlawed and the plants could be protected in gardens. Some deer (like 35%) could be relocated, so it wouldn't be as expensive as relocating more than 70% of them, but I don't know how much it would cost in taxes. Why do you doubt it would make a difference? We don't know until we try or do you already know?

If we had to fix at least some of them (35% again), how do you know it would cause hormonal issues? As for reintroducing their predators, the article mentioned the lack of mountain lions, black bears, and wolves. Some of them could be brought in. It would probably be no different, in terms of safety, than the places where these animals already are. Their overpopulation would just have to be watched, as well.

I'm not an expert on this issue, so I don't know what's best. Regarding cows, before we set them back into the wild, we'd have to find out what their natural predators are. I can't find any stats about cows being overpopulated in the wild. (It's probably because their primary use is for farms in places like North America.) If you can find some links, please post them. I don't think we'll know what will happen until we research beforehand and then let the cows go. Same with other farm animals.

At 10/23/09 11:49 AM, ScytheCutter wrote: Off topic:
What line were you on? I haven't seen that yet and I've been all up and down the Yonge to Finch Line and haven't seen it.

Saw them on the Bloor-Danforth line. I don't know if they're still up, but I remember seeing them in July and August. I don't remember if I ever saw them on the line you mentioned.

Personally? The smell. A sugarglider doesn't smell like week old ass, unlike a donkey. Thus, a sugarglider I will invite into my home, and a cow will remain outside while it snows.
As for why I eat meat at all, I personally enjoy the taste of warm flesh and blood. Why not? Everything has to die some time, and frankly if I didn't eat them the fungus and bacteria would. Unless you plan on embalming every living organism, dooming the planet to starvation by lack of nutrients?
I'll eat any kind of meat you put in front of me. Cow, chicken, lamb, pig, dog, cat, horse, rabbit, alligator, and cobra; I'll eat it all and smile.
I don't personally care whether you eat meat or not, no skin off my back, but I don't plan to be guilt tripped into thinking that every animal is on equal stance with homo sapiens either. The few animals that make the cut include dolphins, African Grey parrots, and some species of apes/gorillas/monkeys.

At 10/23/09 04:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/23/09 01:04 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/23/09 12:38 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Do you remember how the pigeon saved that person's life? Was it inadvertently? Even so, it's just one story.

no, they tied a note to it and the brave little bird flew through the hellstorm and delivered the message. in fact, the pigeon was determined as it was mortally wounded during the flight. it died soon after.

let's see a pig do that.

Pigs can't fly, lol. While it's an interesting story, if it's true, I still don't doubt farm animals could save a person's life, one way or another. I've just yet to hear it.

the whole reason that animals are on farms is because they HAVE no other use to mankind.

That bird may have also been trained to deliver messages, unless you have a link to the story and it doesn't say that.

1. of course it was trained, but that doesn't make it any less heroic.

2. i have no link because i didn't read it on the internet, it was in a book.

If you're gonna say that it's common sense, you should back it up.

THE WHOLE POINT OF COMMON SENSE IS THAT IT DOESN'T NEED BACKING UP!

Not necessarily. From that, you can claim anything is common sense.

common sense is someone that everyone knows. for instance, you can't provide a link to prove that the sky is blue.

I mentioned that chickens, pigs, and cows are intelligent and caring animals.

and you used links to the same retarded website.

Why is it retarded?

it's a website entirely devoted to animal rights. i have heard all the arguements for them and it's all just one continuous steam of bullshit.

I don't know if people will still say they love meat if they only eat it without adding anything extra for taste. Also, chemicals like growth hormones and nitrate in meat is potentially dangerous to us.

better than growing something in cow shit and bug poison

What would that be?

cow shit is used as fertilizer, and bug poison is a pesticide. if growth hormones are "potentially" harmful, what would you call veg farming?

everyone who reads this post, speak up.

Even if five people post, that wouldn't count because they don't represent everyone, either.

you just love to ignore evidence, don't you?

No. I'm saying it's argumentum ad populum. If six people, including you, say they eat meat and don't care about the factory farm abuse, then that doesn't mean everyone is like that.

only if six other people say they do care.

It's easier or it's just common to form a bond with dogs and cats? I don't see why farmers who work on small and family owned farms can't form a bond with their animals.

if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Just like that? Explain.

because if they did, there would be no slaughter houses, no meat industry, nothing. but since they don't...

But again, you don't represent everyone.

but again, at least i'm an example, what do you have? in fact, i also have YOU as an example, because you know about all this shit just as well as i do, yet you still eat meat.

I gave you the reasons why I eat meat, but as I said, that doesn't mean I'm not gonna change or that I haven't thought of it.

there you go again, talking about "change" like it's a necessity.

When have you used me as an example?

alright, let me just say it right here: What is your main point in this whole debate?

And if you use yourself as an example, then I can use myself as an example, but I don't want to because I pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions of people in the world or to North America alone.

i use my self as an example because i am part of the majority in this debate. and as a believer in popular sovereignty, i think that carries some points on it's own.

As users have mentioned in this thread, there are people who eat dogs and cats. That's why I thought you were serious.

only in places like korea. damn, i knew people like you were sick, but that's just disgusting.

I'm sick because I didn't recognize you were making a joke?

if i were to say "i screwed your mom" would you think THAT was serious too?

Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?

are you saying we SHOULD eat dogs?

That doesn't prove anything, unless you just posted it for humour.

i posted it to prove that the AR movement IS humor.

The guy in the video is poking fun at PETA. Not all animal rights groups are like them.

peta is the face of the movement, and when you consider guys like ALF and ARM, they suddenly don't seem so extreme. don't get me wrong, they're nuts, just like every other AR organizatiuon, but they're not the worst among them.

For the reasons and links I posted: morals,

who cares?

health,

who cares?

and the environment.

what a load of bullshit.

If the health and environmental reasons are bullshit, then prove it.

1. there are no health issues, meat has protein which is actually very good for you. the arguement that meat makes you fat is a misconseption, did you know that if done right, a bacon cheeseburger can have fewer calories than a salad?

2. the closest thing you have to an environmental issue is cow flatulence.

How do you know? This scenario has never happened, has it? If farmers know why everyone isn't buying meat, then there'd be no point in even selling the remaining animals as food.

IT'S COMMON SENSE! LET ME GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT EVERYONE ON THE PLANET IS GOING TO BOYCOTT MEAT! EVEN IF A GOOD 90% DO, THE FARMERS WILL STILL PUT THAT LAST BIT OF BEEF ON THE MARKET FOR THE 10% THAT WILL STILL BUY!

OK, I guess I can buy the 10% figure.

dude, the 10% figure is an extreme, it's fictional. my point was that it would never happen, and even if it did, then all it would mean is a mass-genocide of all cows.

It's way better than 100%, anyway. I still don't buy the "common sense" tactic you're using, though. You can't justify your arguments that way.

like i said, common sense is that the sky is blue.

At 10/22/09 02:22 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Well, you don't represent everyone. Besides, don't you care that animals feel pain?

;;;
I just scanned this photo out of a copy of National Geographic.

Could you still eat... say beef , if the foreground subject was a dead cow, & the living subjects (were cows ) & were showing the concern that these primates are showing for the dead member of their troop/herd ?

The chimp in the wheel barrow is a 40 year old female chimp at this rescue/study centre, that has died from heart failure...it looks to me , that many of the surviving members of the troop are showing signs of emotional distress. I'm not trying to 'disney' this by saying they are showing a 'human' type of emotion, but clearly from the photo, these animals are aware that the female is dead,
Or does someone have a different slant on this ?

At 10/21/09 04:45 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: The ads were for this site.

Any relation to this site?

I'm a meat eater, but that's only because I was brought up that way.

I was the same way. I think people only do it because "it tastes good" and they don't care about any of the other bad stuff. For many people, eating meat is completely unnecessary.

At 10/21/09 05:10 PM, darkrchaos wrote: Thats not true, not eating meat is very unhealthy, you don't get the right proteins that u need. Most people that are vegetarians usually take vitamin pills to get what they should get from meat

WRONG!!!!!!

Protein is very easy to get in the absence of meat, actually. Many Americans get too much of it. The only things that aren't easy to get in pure form outside of meat are vitamins B6 and B12. But finding something fortified with it is not difficult. It's very easy to have a complete and balanced diet in the absence of meat.

At 10/21/09 05:40 PM, IETFB wrote: Would you get your cat to pull a plough?

We now use machines for that. It makes sense to stop doing something when it becomes unnecessary. Yet we still eat animals...hmmm.

At 10/21/09 06:09 PM, Freedomblades wrote: Tell you the truth. If those people are so upset that we eat cows, chickens, pigs, etc for there meat and what not they would be appauled if they actually went to the savannahs of Africa.

I hope you don't mean because they'd see lions eating gazelles or some stupid shit like that. YES animals in the wild eat one another. We know that. The point is, humans have the ability to think about their actions more and have things like morals and also have a pretty good abundance of food. We have a choice. A cheetah does not.

At 10/21/09 08:34 PM, OnyxMyr wrote: I honestly wouldn't care about eating a cat or dog, so long as it tastes good and it's prepared nicely than I would still eat it. I love food, and I'm always willing to eat different types. I'm not a big meat eater though, I have red meat about once a month, but I'm just saying that at least I'm not a moral hypocrite.

I can respect people like you more than people who are speciest in that they only eat certain species and hold the others to some higher regard for insignificant reasons. At least you acknowledge that all animals are equal when it comes to the question of whether or not they should be eaten. You just happen to think they should all be eaten, rather than none. I can dig that though.

At 10/21/09 10:52 PM, adrshepard wrote: Meat tastes good, so therefore it is good. Bitter-tasting things are usually bad, since many poisons are bitter.

Ohhh if I gave you raw meat off a freshly dead animal, I bet you'd puke trying to eat it. It only tastes good because humans cook it and cover it up in sauces and spices. You don't see any other meat-eating animal doing that.

At 10/22/09 01:00 AM, TheStonePilot wrote: I'm all for humane treatment, don't get me wrong, but we eat meat. It's just in our nature. Would you stop a tiger from eating a deer? Would you stop a hawk from eating a rabbit? It's evolution, everything fits together.

Tiger=carnivore, deer= herbivore
Hawk=carnivore, rabbit=herbivore
Human=OMNIVORE

Why do stupid people always think there are vegetarians who want to go out and stop predatory animals from eating their prey? It's about HUMANS, not about lions or tigers or sharks. You cannot claim a human is as incapable as a lion of understanding the way their actions affect the world. Our brains are not the same, and our minds are very different. If I were a tiger, I could kill anyone or anything I wanted without having to worry the other tigers would send me to jail or death. HUMANS have rules against such things and have laws, police, jails, courts, etc all set aside to deal with such matters. Stop concluding that it's okay for humans to do something so long as some other animal someplace else has done it.

Go to the Meet the animals section and read up if you are unable to see why dogs are not more valuable than "farm" animals.

At 10/24/09 11:39 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/22/09 02:22 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Well, you don't represent everyone. Besides, don't you care that animals feel pain?

;;;
I just scanned this photo out of a copy of National Geographic.

Could you still eat... say beef , if the foreground subject was a dead cow, & the living subjects (were cows ) & were showing the concern that these primates are showing for the dead member of their troop/herd ?

The chimp in the wheel barrow is a 40 year old female chimp at this rescue/study centre, that has died from heart failure...it looks to me , that many of the surviving members of the troop are showing signs of emotional distress. I'm not trying to 'disney' this by saying they are showing a 'human' type of emotion, but clearly from the photo, these animals are aware that the female is dead,
Or does someone have a different slant on this ?

Chips are also higher primates. Chips show higher level of communication, learning, and other skills more than a majority of animals. Therefore, I would consider them a much higher level of animal than a cow.

So, if it were a cow being wheelbarrowed out and the other cows showed a) some form of intelligence outside of the norm for an animal, b) concern that their fellow cow had died, and c) this was fairly common among cows, then yes I may stop eating cows. But they don't.

You can probably teach them some stupid dog tricks, but as far as showing deep emotion, and everything else that higher primates do, that doesn't happen.

At 10/23/09 06:24 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/23/09 04:45 AM, ReiperX wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/04/nyregi on/debate-intensifies-on-ways-to-curb-gr owing-deer-population.html <very old article>

http://forums.qdma.com/showthread.php?t=
25528 <much newer one>

Now there are alternatives. Trapping and relocation (will be expensive and I doubt it would make much of a difference), trapping/euthanizing (same as hunting), trapping and fixing them (could cause hormonal issues in the wild, plus would become expensive)

My mother lives in the country with a large population of deer. In the past 10 years she's hit 5. I've almost hit 2 while visiting her. About five miles down the road where I live (I live in a fairly dense suburb of Nashville) they have serious problems every fall with deer/car collisions. I'm sure if you wanted you could even find out how much every year that the insurance company pays for such collisions.

Although, another alternative would be to reintroduce the deer's natural predators. This would be the most natural way to control the deer population, but I'm sure in many semi developed areas, having a number of cougar could pose a danger to children and small pets.

As far as the cows go, we keep breeding under control. If left in the wild without a natural predator, then their populations would also grow dramatically. I've only seen one cow/car wreck in my lifetime, but the person was life flighted from the scene.

I read the new article, and yeah, I can see it's a problem, although the article is for Arkansas. Like I said, is it happening in many other states?

Yes. It happens in a lot of states. Tennessee is another example of a state with an overpopulation of deer in many areas.

Anyway, the article says a couple of the causes are from recreational deer feeding and plants from gardens they like to eat.

This is one of the reasons but not the only reason. Many areas that have deer population issues don't have a lot of deer feeders. There is just a lack of predators. Right now, human beings are the primary predator of deer.

The feeding could be outlawed and the plants could be protected in gardens.

The feeding can be outlawed but enforcing it is another thing. You can only go so far at protecting your gardens before either the purpose of the garden is moot (looks) or it's becoming too expensive to protect the garden for it to have a purpose (food).

Some deer (like 35%) could be relocated, so it wouldn't be as expensive as relocating more than 70% of them, but I don't know how much it would cost in taxes.

Deer are overpopulated in many areas of the state, particularly in urban areas where hunting is not allowed and there are no natural predators for deer. A survey estimated 105 deer per square mile in Holiday Island when resource managers say eight to 10 deer is the ideal density.

So this puts the deer population at 10x what is ideal. So by moving 35% of the deer out of the area (still going to be expensive as hell you are talking about tranquilizing hundreds if not thousands of deer and moving them elsewhere) you are barely scratching the surface.

Why do you doubt it would make a difference? We don't know until we try or do you already know?

35% of the deer population would likely take 10 years max to make up. And this is still leaving the population at roughly 70% higher than ideal in many of these areas.

If we had to fix at least some of them (35% again), how do you know it would cause hormonal issues?

I don't know personally. I know my pets act differently after they have been fixed and they are domesticated. I'm unsure how a wild animal would react to the hormonal changes that occur when you are fixed (the changes occur, not sure to what extent in deer).

As for reintroducing their predators, the article mentioned the lack of mountain lions, black bears, and wolves. Some of them could be brought in. It would probably be no different, in terms of safety, than the places where these animals already are. Their overpopulation would just have to be watched, as well.

Many of the overpopulated areas are in suburban and urban areas. If I recall some of my college classes before, predators are sustainable at like 5 or 10% of their prey's population (I could be slightly off on this). So lets introduce mountain lions to a suburban area. They will multiply quickly due to the abundance of food, and stabilize. So you are looking at a few generations (4 - 5 years) of mountain lions basically free feeding on deer until the populations reach a equilibrium, and there will be above the normal amount of these predators in the area (10x overpopulation in deer will probably hit 5 - 7x the overpopulation once the predators catch up in numbers and both begin to really decline). This is roughly 5 - 7 mountain lions per square mile when naturally they have a range of 25 - 100 square kilometers. This is going to lead to issues, and the lions will be forced to spread out which means more mountain lions in residential neighborhoods.

Now right now there may be a relatively few mountain lions in the area. But without keeping their populations under control it won't take much before pets and small children are attacked and/or killed. Remember these overpopulation are not just in rural areas but suburban areas as well.

I'm not an expert on this issue, so I don't know what's best. Regarding cows, before we set them back into the wild, we'd have to find out what their natural predators are. I can't find any stats about cows being overpopulated in the wild. (It's probably because their primary use is for farms in places like North America.) If you can find some links, please post them. I don't think we'll know what will happen until we research beforehand and then let the cows go. Same with other farm animals.

http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/wil dcattle.html

Technically cows as we have now don't exist in the wild anymore. They have been domesticated and the wild cattle hunted to extinction. And there is no reason to think that, if left in the wild (if they can survive wild that is) that they will overproduce. Right now many cattle don't reproduce because many of the bulls are neutered, and many cows are kept away from bulls. So if you allow them to free breed then you run into the same issues that deer have. It all boils down to not having a natural predator.

http://dieoff.org/page80.htm is a good example of a population crash and what happens when a species is introduced without a predator.

Now a predator doesn't really need a predator, as they will often balance out their populations depending on their food source. It is rare for a predator to hunt it's food to extinction (humans are an exception to the rule but we aren't the natural predator of many animals that we hunted to extinction).

Not to generally get into the ethics of meat eating but more of the "favouritism" that we show when doing it(E.g it's taboo to eat mainstream pets compared to those that aint)

People have been eating dogs/cats for years now and still do in some places/cultures, one arguement i suppose for people viewing it as a nono is the history of the animals. Dogs for example have been used for so many years in so many ways their "usefullness" outweighed using them as food. A bond of sorts has been formed between our two species(or atleast we like to see it that way) dog is "mans best friend" for a reason.

Their main purpose has been used in hunting for hundreds of years now, also the use of their wolf cousins has been used for sleding to.

As food became easier to get, the use of hunting itself has died out and so has the mass use of dogs. So i suppose they became more of a pet over the years in a sense that "they earned it" and still do to this day(Sheep dogs and so on)

That said it's probably economically cheaper to mass produce chicken/beef or what have you which probably plays a part.

At 10/23/09 09:01 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/23/09 04:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Pigs can't fly, lol. While it's an interesting story, if it's true, I still don't doubt farm animals could save a person's life, one way or another. I've just yet to hear it.

the whole reason that animals are on farms is because they HAVE no other use to mankind.

This is another thing I wonder about: Why do we have to treat animals like they belong to us? As Moby wrote in his Play album:

"Animals are sentient creatures with their own wills, and it seems wrong to force our will onto another creature just because we're able to."

That bird may have also been trained to deliver messages, unless you have a link to the story and it doesn't say that.

1. of course it was trained, but that doesn't make it any less heroic.

2. i have no link because i didn't read it on the internet, it was in a book.

So, if it was trained, then why do you act like a farm animal can't be trained for something like that?

Not necessarily. From that, you can claim anything is common sense.

common sense is someone that everyone knows. for instance, you can't provide a link to prove that the sky is blue.

How is that as common as your claim that cows don't play with people (or themselves, for that matter), beg for affection (or just are affectionate), and notice when there's trouble? Don't use "common sense" again because that's arguing from silence.

Why is it retarded?

it's a website entirely devoted to animal rights. i have heard all the arguements for them and it's all just one continuous steam of bullshit.

Just because it's a website (partly) devoted to animal rights doesn't mean it's bullshit. Have you even browsed through it? Throughout this debate, you've hardly proven anything.

What would that be?

cow shit is used as fertilizer, and bug poison is a pesticide. if growth hormones are "potentially" harmful, what would you call veg farming?

Well, if you clean and wash fruits and vegetables properly before you eat them, then there's way less or no chance of the possibility of any harm, right? Maybe the playing field is level for meat vs. fruits and vegetables, in terms of chemical poisoning. I actually don't know. I do know that manure can get into meat, as well. Read the book Fast Food Nation or read this article as an example.

No. I'm saying it's argumentum ad populum. If six people, including you, say they eat meat and don't care about the factory farm abuse, then that doesn't mean everyone is like that.

only if six other people say they do care.

What?

Just like that? Explain.

because if they did, there would be no slaughter houses, no meat industry, nothing. but since they don't...

Although I can't speak for farmers, if they don't work on factory farms, they may form a bond with one or two of their animals, but they don't care because farming is a business. Afterall, they don't study animals like researchers do. They sell them for food.

And if you use yourself as an example, then I can use myself as an example, but I don't want to because I pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions of people in the world or to North America alone.

i use my self as an example because i am part of the majority in this debate. and as a believer in popular sovereignty, i think that carries some points on it's own.

Since when is popular sovereignty related to an online debate between two people? That sounds awfully egotistical of you.

I'm sick because I didn't recognize you were making a joke?

if i were to say "i screwed your mom" would you think THAT was serious too?

No, because it isn't subtle than saying dogs and cats don't taste good in a debate like this. Besides, saying I screwed your mom is a common joke/insult. You don't have to Google that to know, right? It's like using your example by saying the sky is blue, at least to people who are familiar with your mom jokes/insults. Anyway, I didn't know it was a joke. Let's just drop it.

Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?

are you saying we SHOULD eat dogs?

No, and that wasn't even my question.

That doesn't prove anything, unless you just posted it for humour.

i posted it to prove that the AR movement IS humor.

The guy in the video is poking fun at PETA. Not all animal rights groups are like them.

peta is the face of the movement, and when you consider guys like ALF and ARM, they suddenly don't seem so extreme. don't get me wrong, they're nuts, just like every other AR organizatiuon, but they're not the worst among them.

Well, Mercy for Animals (who made the ChooseVeg website) isn't extreme like those groups. However, we've derailed from your claim, which you still haven't proven:

"dude, we all know that a vast majority of america is against animal rights. it's become a joke."

If the health and environmental reasons are bullshit, then prove it.

1. there are no health issues, meat has protein which is actually very good for you. the arguement that meat makes you fat is a misconseption, did you know that if done right, a bacon cheeseburger can have fewer calories than a salad?

Yes, there are health issues, if you bothered to read the website, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

2. the closest thing you have to an environmental issue is cow flatulence.

Also burps, manure, deforestation, fossil fuels, and synthetic fertilizer, among other things.

OK, I guess I can buy the 10% figure.

dude, the 10% figure is an extreme, it's fictional. my point was that it would never happen, and even if it did, then all it would mean is a mass-genocide of all cows.

Never say never. If people are educated and start caring about the animals they eat (again, in all likelihood, this wouldn't happen overnight) then it could happen.

It's way better than 100%, anyway. I still don't buy the "common sense" tactic you're using, though. You can't justify your arguments that way.

like i said, common sense is that the sky is blue.

Blah.

At 10/24/09 05:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/23/09 09:01 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

text

Come on! His nick should be enough for you to understand there's no point discussing this with him. You know, life's sacred over everything else, but only as long as it's human life.

At 10/24/09 07:21 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 10/24/09 05:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/23/09 09:01 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

text

Come on! His nick should be enough for you to understand there's no point discussing this with him. You know, life's sacred over everything else, but only as long as it's human life.

I don't think his nick is the problem. I'm not making this a partisan issue. However, yeah, I am having trouble having a decent debate with him.

At 10/24/09 05:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/23/09 09:01 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/23/09 04:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Pigs can't fly, lol. While it's an interesting story, if it's true, I still don't doubt farm animals could save a person's life, one way or another. I've just yet to hear it.

the whole reason that animals are on farms is because they HAVE no other use to mankind.

This is another thing I wonder about: Why do we have to treat animals like they belong to us? As Moby wrote in his Play album: "Animals are sentient creatures with their own wills, and it seems wrong to force our will onto another creature just because we're able to."

because humans are the dominant species. if we are capable of doing something that will benifit our race, then we should do so. just like the dinosaurs before us.

That bird may have also been trained to deliver messages, unless you have a link to the story and it doesn't say that.

1. of course it was trained, but that doesn't make it any less heroic.

2. i have no link because i didn't read it on the internet, it was in a book.

So, if it was trained, then why do you act like a farm animal can't be trained for something like that?

it's like you said: "pigs don't fly".

Not necessarily. From that, you can claim anything is common sense.

common sense is someone that everyone knows. for instance, you can't provide a link to prove that the sky is blue.

How is that as common as your claim that cows don't play with people

because they're too busy grazing. trust me, i've seen it first-hand.

(or themselves, for that matter),

perhaps you'd like to rephrase that?

beg for affection (or just are affectionate),

again, grazing.

and notice when there's trouble?

that may be true, but i doubt they have an effective way of signaling the farmer.

Why is it retarded?

it's a website entirely devoted to animal rights. i have heard all the arguements for them and it's all just one continuous steam of bullshit.

Just because it's a website (partly) devoted to animal rights doesn't mean it's bullshit.

dude, all that animal rights websites know how to do is make up bullshit arguements for their pitiful cause.

Have you even browsed through it?

briefly.

Throughout this debate, you've hardly proven anything.

and you have?

What would that be?

cow shit is used as fertilizer, and bug poison is a pesticide. if growth hormones are "potentially" harmful, what would you call veg farming?

Well, if you clean and wash fruits and vegetables properly before you eat them, then there's way less or no chance of the possibility of any harm, right?

dude, if you were to grow something from feces and poison, no amount of cleaning will make it 100% safe.

Maybe the playing field is level for meat vs. fruits and vegetables, in terms of chemical poisoning. I actually don't know. I do know that manure can get into meat, as well. Read the book Fast Food Nation or read this article as an example.

all that article says is that there were MICROSCOPIC pieces of manure on some carcasses, and that they found a way to fix it.

Just like that? Explain.

because if they did, there would be no slaughter houses, no meat industry, nothing. but since they don't...

Although I can't speak for farmers, if they don't work on factory farms, they may form a bond with one or two of their animals,

you're just pulling that outta your ass. most people can't even tell the difference between two animals without using tags or collars. why do you think so many farmers brand their cattle?

but they don't care because farming is a business.

i knew you were going to attack capitalism sooner or later.

Afterall, they don't study animals like researchers do. They sell them for food.

you know how researchers study them? they feed them chemicals to see whether they explode or not.

And if you use yourself as an example, then I can use myself as an example, but I don't want to because I pale in comparison to the hundreds of millions of people in the world or to North America alone.

i use my self as an example because i am part of the majority in this debate. and as a believer in popular sovereignty, i think that carries some points on it's own.

Since when is popular sovereignty related to an online debate between two people? That sounds awfully egotistical of you.

how is it egotistical to ask for a majority opinion?

I'm sick because I didn't recognize you were making a joke?

if i were to say "i screwed your mom" would you think THAT was serious too?

No, because it isn't subtle than saying dogs and cats don't taste good in a debate like this.

and saying that "i eat puppies and use their bones to kill more puppies" is subtle?

Besides, saying I screwed your mom is a common joke/insult. You don't have to Google that to know, right?

that's what she said last night. :)

Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?

are you saying we SHOULD eat dogs?

No, and that wasn't even my question.

you made the arguement that dog meat wasn't disgusting.

That doesn't prove anything, unless you just posted it for humour.

i posted it to prove that the AR movement IS humor.

The guy in the video is poking fun at PETA. Not all animal rights groups are like them.

peta is the face of the movement, and when you consider guys like ALF and ARM, they suddenly don't seem so extreme. don't get me wrong, they're nuts, just like every other AR organizatiuon, but they're not the worst among them.

Well, Mercy for Animals (who made the ChooseVeg website) isn't extreme like those groups.

maybe, but they're still nuts like those groups.

However, we've derailed from your claim, which you still haven't proven:

who's "we"?

"dude, we all know that a vast majority of america is against animal rights. it's become a joke."

it IS a joke, even futurama made fun of it.

If the health and environmental reasons are bullshit, then prove it.

1. there are no health issues, meat has protein which is actually very good for you. the arguement that meat makes you fat is a misconseption, did you know that if done right, a bacon cheeseburger can have fewer calories than a salad?

Yes, there are health issues, if you bothered to read the website, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

how do you know the website isn't lying out of its vegan ass?

2. the closest thing you have to an environmental issue is cow flatulence.

Also burps, manure, deforestation, fossil fuels, and synthetic fertilizer, among other things.

please, global warming is an even bigger load of shit than AR.

OK, I guess I can buy the 10% figure.

dude, the 10% figure is an extreme, it's fictional. my point was that it would never happen, and even if it did, then all it would mean is a mass-genocide of all cows.

Never say never. If people are educated and start caring about the animals they eat

you mean, indoctrinated?

(again, in all likelihood, this wouldn't happen overnight) then it could happen.

once again, there will always be SOMEONE willing to buy meat. even a total idiot would believe otherwise.

And as a side note, why are you standing up for farm animals? i can understand something like animal abuse, that's something i think we all care about, but meat-eating as a whole? and the arguements you use are just the same old rehash that all those wackos for animal rights keep shoveling in. you are treating the issue like "everyone who doesn't go vegan is horrible and has no redeeming values" and insisting that "change" is the only way. i, for one, hate this tactic, and hate you for using it.

I eat cows but not dogs or cats because cows taste better. Dogs are tough and bitter, while cats are dry and taste like sand. Of course, this is all personal opinion.

I won't ever eat neither dog nor cat, i thought it is worst ever..........

At 10/24/09 09:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/24/09 05:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: This is another thing I wonder about: Why do we have to treat animals like they belong to us? As Moby wrote in his Play album: "Animals are sentient creatures with their own wills, and it seems wrong to force our will onto another creature just because we're able to."

because humans are the dominant species. if we are capable of doing something that will benifit our race, then we should do so. just like the dinosaurs before us.

Just because humans are the dominant species doesn't mean we have to do things to benefit our race if we don't need to because they're morally wrong, etc. This is what I'm arguing, in the case of farm animals. And what did dinosaurs do to benefit themselves the way we did? They weren't even a quarter as smart as us.

So, if it was trained, then why do you act like a farm animal can't be trained for something like that?

it's like you said: "pigs don't fly".

On foot. Don't give me that straw man argument.

How is that as common as your claim that cows don't play with people

because they're too busy grazing. trust me, i've seen it first-hand.

How long were you watching the cow(s)? A few minutes? If so, that doesn't count.

(or themselves, for that matter),

perhaps you'd like to rephrase that?

I'm referring to cows, not people, if you didn't understand.

and notice when there's trouble?

that may be true, but i doubt they have an effective way of signaling the farmer.

I guess not like dogs, but not all common pets are like dogs. I did find this on cows: "Most cows kick because they are frightened, are in pain, or have been mistreated." The rest of the article also has relevant information.

Just because it's a website (partly) devoted to animal rights doesn't mean it's bullshit.

dude, all that animal rights websites know how to do is make up bullshit arguements for their pitiful cause.

So that's your excuse for not proving this one wrong? Not all animal rights websites are one and the same.

Throughout this debate, you've hardly proven anything.

and you have?

More than you. The only two supportive links you've provided are for extremist animals rights groups.

Well, if you clean and wash fruits and vegetables properly before you eat them, then there's way less or no chance of the possibility of any harm, right?

dude, if you were to grow something from feces and poison, no amount of cleaning will make it 100% safe.

Do you know and/or have any links that say shit and bug poison are always respectively used as fertilizer and pesticide? I don't know the process of how fruits and vegetables are cleaned before they're sold.

Maybe the playing field is level for meat vs. fruits and vegetables, in terms of chemical poisoning. I actually don't know. I do know that manure can get into meat, as well. Read the book Fast Food Nation or read this article as an example.

all that article says is that there were MICROSCOPIC pieces of manure on some carcasses, and that they found a way to fix it.

The article never actually said the problem was fixed. Whether the pieces are microscopic or not, "E. coli O157:H7 kills an estimated 60 Americans each year and sickens an estimated 73,000 more, mostly children and the elderly." Besides, as I said, it was just an example. Here's an article that's only two days old, and it says the problem is still ongoing.

Although I can't speak for farmers, if they don't work on factory farms, they may form a bond with one or two of their animals,

you're just pulling that outta your ass. most people can't even tell the difference between two animals without using tags or collars. why do you think so many farmers brand their cattle?

Livestock are branded for ownership. Anyway, I guess it depends on the size of the farm, if farmers were to form a bond with one or two of the animals. For big farms, which have at least hundreds of animals, probably not, but farms with less than forty, maybe. If farmers use tags or collars for small farms, they might come in handy for recognizing, or the farmer just know from something to distinguish the animal from the rest.

but they don't care because farming is a business.

i knew you were going to attack capitalism sooner or later.

How is that an attack on capitalism?

Afterall, they don't study animals like researchers do. They sell them for food.

you know how researchers study them? they feed them chemicals to see whether they explode or not.

I'm not talking about those kinds of researchers.

Since when is popular sovereignty related to an online debate between two people? That sounds awfully egotistical of you.

how is it egotistical to ask for a majority opinion?

That's not what I was asking. Anyway, I probably misinterpreted the type of sovereignty you were referring to. I thought it was power. If it's not that, then I'm sorry. I still think it's unfair if six people were to say they eat meat and don't care about the abuse because, like I said, it's argumentum ad populum.

No, and that wasn't even my question.

you made the arguement that dog meat wasn't disgusting.

No, I said, "Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?"

Well, Mercy for Animals (who made the ChooseVeg website) isn't extreme like those groups.

maybe, but they're still nuts like those groups.

It's funny how this section of the Wikipedia article is all there is compared to other extremist animals right groups. Mercy for Animals "adheres to nonviolent principles". I definitely don't think they're nuts.

However, we've derailed from your claim, which you still haven't proven:

who's "we"?

You and I, who are debating.

"dude, we all know that a vast majority of america is against animal rights. it's become a joke."

it IS a joke, even futurama made fun of it.

A Futurama episode is your proof? I mean... really?

Yes, there are health issues, if you bothered to read the website, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

how do you know the website isn't lying out of its vegan ass?

Alright then:

Heart disease
Cancer
Diabetes

Also burps, manure, deforestation, fossil fuels, and synthetic fertilizer, among other things.

please, global warming is an even bigger load of shit than AR.

Give me some sources. It's not just global warming. There's wasting resources, extinction, and pollution. They're all covered on the site.

Never say never. If people are educated and start caring about the animals they eat

you mean, indoctrinated?

Depends on what you exactly mean by that.

(again, in all likelihood, this wouldn't happen overnight) then it could happen.

once again, there will always be SOMEONE willing to buy meat. even a total idiot would believe otherwise.

Well, someone is better than everyone.

At 10/24/09 09:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: And as a side note, why are you standing up for farm animals? i can understand something like animal abuse, that's something i think we all care about, but meat-eating as a whole?

I've already explained why with the moral, environmental, and health issues. (Factory farming included.) Of course it's good if you care about animal abuse, but I'm looking beyond that, and what I've found isn't pleasing.

and the arguements you use are just the same old rehash that all those wackos for animal rights keep shoveling in.

What arguments would that be? I'm not doing things like a Nazi comparison.

you are treating the issue like "everyone who doesn't go vegan is horrible and has no redeeming values" and insisting that "change" is the only way. i, for one, hate this tactic, and hate you for using it.

I explained this to you in the PM, but I'm not trying to be "I'm right, you're wrong". I'm just putting the issue up for debate.

At 10/28/09 11:13 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 10/24/09 09:00 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/24/09 05:10 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: This is another thing I wonder about: Why do we have to treat animals like they belong to us? As Moby wrote in his Play album: "Animals are sentient creatures with their own wills, and it seems wrong to force our will onto another creature just because we're able to."

because humans are the dominant species. if we are capable of doing something that will benifit our race, then we should do so. just like the dinosaurs before us.

Just because humans are the dominant species doesn't mean we have to do things to benefit our race if we don't need to

who says we don't need to?

because they're morally wrong, etc.

i keep telling you, it's NOT morally wrong. other animals do it, how come it's only wrong when we do it?

This is what I'm arguing, in the case of farm animals. And what did dinosaurs do to benefit themselves the way we did?

they ate animals, the same thing we do.

They weren't even a quarter as smart as us.

that's not my point, my point is that they were the dominant species. they just got there a different way than we did.

So, if it was trained, then why do you act like a farm animal can't be trained for something like that?

it's like you said: "pigs don't fly".

On foot. Don't give me that straw man argument.

alright, give me an example, just ONE example of how a cow can save someone's life.

How is that as common as your claim that cows don't play with people

because they're too busy grazing. trust me, i've seen it first-hand.

How long were you watching the cow(s)? A few minutes? If so, that doesn't count.

i watched them long enough, in fact, have YOU ever gone to a farm? if not, then you have no right to dispute this agruement.

and notice when there's trouble?

that may be true, but i doubt they have an effective way of signaling the farmer.

I guess not like dogs, but not all common pets are like dogs. I did find this on cows: "Most cows kick because they are frightened, are in pain, or have been mistreated." The rest of the article also has relevant information.

like anyone's gonna hear kicking. why do you think farmers like to keep dogs in the pens?

Just because it's a website (partly) devoted to animal rights doesn't mean it's bullshit.

dude, all that animal rights websites know how to do is make up bullshit arguements for their pitiful cause.

So that's your excuse for not proving this one wrong? Not all animal rights websites are one and the same.

from the site you gave me: " plants do not have a central nervous system and it is generally agreed upon in the scientific community that plants are incapable of suffering."

from peta.org: "There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains."

Maybe the playing field is level for meat vs. fruits and vegetables, in terms of chemical poisoning. I actually don't know. I do know that manure can get into meat, as well. Read the book Fast Food Nation or read this article as an example.

all that article says is that there were MICROSCOPIC pieces of manure on some carcasses, and that they found a way to fix it.

The article never actually said the problem was fixed. Whether the pieces are microscopic or not, "E. coli O157:H7 kills an estimated 60 Americans each year and sickens an estimated 73,000 more, mostly children and the elderly." Besides, as I said, it was just an example. Here's an article that's only two days old, and it says the problem is still ongoing.

the same e. coli that can easily be killed by proper cooking?

Although I can't speak for farmers, if they don't work on factory farms, they may form a bond with one or two of their animals,

you're just pulling that outta your ass. most people can't even tell the difference between two animals without using tags or collars. why do you think so many farmers brand their cattle?

Livestock are branded for ownership. Anyway, I guess it depends on the size of the farm, if farmers were to form a bond with one or two of the animals. For big farms, which have at least hundreds of animals, probably not, but farms with less than forty, maybe. If farmers use tags or collars for small farms, they might come in handy for recognizing, or the farmer just know from something to distinguish the animal from the rest.

BOTTOM LINE, THEY ARE BRANDED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE!

Afterall, they don't study animals like researchers do. They sell them for food.

you know how researchers study them? they feed them chemicals to see whether they explode or not.

I'm not talking about those kinds of researchers.

then WHAT kind of researchers?

No, and that wasn't even my question.

you made the arguement that dog meat wasn't disgusting.

No, I said, "Since you haven't tried it, how can you say it's disgusting?"

are you, or are you not making the arguement that dogmeat tastes just as good as regular meat?

Well, Mercy for Animals (who made the ChooseVeg website) isn't extreme like those groups.

maybe, but they're still nuts like those groups.

It's funny how this section of the Wikipedia article is all there is compared to other extremist animals right groups. Mercy for Animals "adheres to nonviolent principles".

i never said they were extreme, i said they were nuts, there's a difference.

I definitely don't think they're nuts.

And i quote: "Free-Range products promote animal cruelty"

"dude, we all know that a vast majority of america is against animal rights. it's become a joke."

it IS a joke, even futurama made fun of it.

A Futurama episode is your proof? I mean... really?

i have more.

and this

also this

there's plenty more than that, but i think i made my point.

Yes, there are health issues, if you bothered to read the website, like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

how do you know the website isn't lying out of its vegan ass?

Alright then:

Heart disease
Cancer
Diabetes

google searches? why, because you couldn't find real sources?

Also burps, manure, deforestation, fossil fuels, and synthetic fertilizer, among other things.

please, global warming is an even bigger load of shit than AR.

Give me some sources.

i don't need sources, i can disprove any global warming arguement you can throw at me. right here, right not.

It's not just global warming. There's wasting resources,

how? by feeding them grass, seeds, or trash that we don't eat?

extinction,

because everyone knows that when you control a population effectively, by breeding them and eating them in equivilent numbers, you're contributing to extinction.

and pollution. They're all covered on the site.

by "polution", you mean cow farts.

Never say never. If people are educated and start caring about the animals they eat

you mean, indoctrinated?

Depends on what you exactly mean by that.

i mean this

It's just a matter of culture. In our culture, eating cats and dogs is considered taboo, but wouldn't be like in places like Asia where I'm pretty sure that actually happens. In terms of Asians, I'd also like to point out stuff like how India regards cows are sacred and can never kill them (do they have McDonald's there?).

That being said, I think this was a good case, but I wouldn't say it's going to help me become a vegetarian, because I, like other Americans, view cats and dogs as things as can help you. I heard some studies that having a pet is actually healthy for you. I would think things like pigs and chickens would be harder to take care of.

Aww, now I understand better what that South Park episode was trying to tell me. I saw it on the Internet, BTW, on their website. It featured a whale and a dolphin being doctored into a photograph with them dropping the atomic bomb causing the Japanese to think it was them instead of the Americans. They solved this by making a new photograph with a chicken and a cow dropping the bomb, causing everyone to kill chickens and cows like the rest of us. I do, however, doubt this is suporting PETA, as another episode made fun of them.

Anyway, I did like how this got a person to feeling. I've read research that says animals like cats or dogs as pets can reduce blood pressure, but I rarely hear any statistical information saying that having pet chickens or cows is bad. I'm not even sure if countries like India keep them as pets (cows at least). We should basically just do whatever we individuals think is right regarding the ethics of animal use, but not forcing our opinions on other people.

I don't know why we don't eat cats and dogs.
There's so many in abandoned shelters that we just put down and dump in the garbage. You could feed thousands of homeless people with those cats and dogs.

But I sure as hell know why people don't keep cows as pets.
Or chickens. If you keep a chicken as a pet, you're a crazy person.

and if you keep cats as a pet you might get infected with toxoplasmosis which might lead to schizophrenia, which might reflect on your art

like louis wain
http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&saf e=off&resnum=0&q=louis%20wain&um=1&ie=UT F-8&sa=N&tab=wi

I'm not even sure

maybe try verification via google

In a modern day society, there is no excuse to not be furthering development in products that give nutrition without an increased reliance on animal products.

If we have the technology, we should enable it for the common good, "human nature" is not an excuse to stop progression.

At 10/30/09 01:56 PM, drDAK wrote: In a modern day society, there is no excuse to not be furthering development in products that give nutrition without an increased reliance on animal products.

If we have the technology, we should enable it for the common good, "human nature" is not an excuse to stop progression.

Why spend the money? If successful you'd cause a worldwide depression - now hundreds of thousands of jobs are out because you found a way to make animal harvesting unnecessary.

Now, I still don't understand why we should give a shit about animals and how we treat them? Because they can feel it? Who cares? They're not of the human race.

At 10/30/09 02:02 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 10/30/09 01:56 PM, drDAK wrote:

Now, I still don't understand why we should give a shit about animals and how we treat them? Because they can feel it? Who cares? They're not of the human race.

If you need to be told, you'll never understand it.

At 10/30/09 02:02 PM, riemannSum wrote: Why spend the money? If successful you'd cause a worldwide depression - now hundreds of thousands of jobs are out because you found a way to make animal harvesting unnecessary.

Now, I still don't understand why we should give a shit about animals and how we treat them? Because they can feel it? Who cares? They're not of the human race.

Why spend the money? Morals aside, technically you don't have to "give a shit" about anything or anyone. However, when we have the abilities to promote good (and no it doesn't cost alot) it makes us bad to not pursue it.

Those hundreds of thousands of jobs will go to the new industry, a process that happens as societies advance.

At 10/30/09 02:02 PM, riemannSum wrote:

Why spend the money?

To make some

now hundreds of thousands of jobs are out because you found a way to make animal harvesting unnecessary.

Boo hoo. That's how the world works: you invent something better than what exists and you put the people who did the old crappy thing out of business.
No one wept for the walkman or the cassette tape when MP3 players were invented.

Now, I still don't understand why we should give a shit about animals and how we treat them?

We shouldn't.
Animals are stupid.

But if you care about your health, then don't eat so many animals.
If you care about your wallet, don't eat so many animals.
If you want to save the earth for later destruction, don't eat so many animals.

Sparing animals from suffering is the least compelling reason to not eat them and the most promoted by dipshits like PETA.

Put a stack of studies that show a correlation between steak and hearth attacks in front of a person's fat diabetic face and you'll convince them way faster than by petting a chicken in front of them and dumping blood on celebrities. No one likes celebrities anyway >: (

At 10/30/09 02:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/30/09 02:02 PM, riemannSum wrote:

To make some

Explain.

Boo hoo. That's how the world works: you invent something better than what exists and you put the people who did the old crappy thing out of business.

We're not putting an old crappy thing out of business. This isn't progress.

No one wept for the walkman or the cassette tape when MP3 players were invented.

lol? That's a false analogy if I've ever heard one.

We shouldn't.
Animals are stupid.

But if you care about your health, then don't eat so many animals.

I eat as much meat as I can possibly get my hands on and I'm perfectly healthy. I don't have cholesterol problems, and no one in my family history does either.

If you care about your wallet, don't eat so many animals.

Or I could have a nice diverse meal and spend a few extra dollars. I'll pay for the luxury of meat.

If you want to save the earth for later destruction, don't eat so many animals.

If you're talking about the methane cows produce, I still don't care. It's not substantial enough to cause global warming in an extremity which would cause the earth to get all fucked up in my lifetime, and if everyone's dead later, then I guess I don't need to care about my kid's lifetime either.

Sparing animals from suffering is the least compelling reason to not eat them and the most promoted by dipshits like PETA.

Put a stack of studies that show a correlation between steak and hearth attacks in front of a person's fat diabetic face and you'll convince them way faster than by petting a chicken in front of them and dumping blood on celebrities. No one likes celebrities anyway >: (

Well, if you put that argument forth then I guess it doesn't make sense for me to go vegan. I have no reason to believe I'll have heart problems, diabetes, or obesity. On top of that I live a very active, physical lifestyle which requires I intake a large amount of calories and protein. Good thing I didn't generalize this to everyone.

At 10/30/09 05:33 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 10/30/09 02:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/30/09 02:02 PM, riemannSum wrote:

To make some

Explain.

If you spend money developing and promoting a meat substitute, you will make money.
Like the soy industry. KA-CHING

We're not putting an old crappy thing out of business. This isn't progress.

It's not strictly technological progress, but it's progress by almost every way people use to measure progress.

I eat as much meat as I can possibly get my hands on and I'm perfectly healthy.

Or I could have a nice diverse meal and spend a few extra dollars.

Well pick one: do you eat as much meat as possible or do you just eat a little meat with you meals?

If you're talking about the methane cows produce, I still don't care.

Raising farm animals is a more damageable form of agriculture than just about anything. Starting with the simple fact that to make 1 pound of beef you need to first grow 10 pounds of grain.

I have no reason to believe I'll have heart problems, diabetes, or obesity. On top of that I live a very active, physical lifestyle which requires I intake a large amount of calories and protein.

You could replace the meat with vegetables and pretty much be strictly better off.

Meat isn't poisonous or anything, it's just that the way it's part of people's lifestyles makes it one of the primary reasons why they get so fucked up. If you eat reasonable amounts you'll be fine obviously.

But the meat vs vegetable arguments pretty much all favor the vegan side. The only real reason you'd have for eating meat is because you like it and don't give a shit about the environment. Which is a good enough reason for me.