... than the diet. He uses the term "flesh", a small point, but it's a word commonly used by anti-meat activists to induce revulsion. Then he says "was never intended for human beings" which is a distinctly unscientific turn of phrase, "intended" by whom? God? I'm not even debating that meat consumption can be a health risk, but this quote is fishy. ...
... objecting to rather than the diet. He uses the term "flesh", a small point, but it's a word commonly used by anti-meat activists to induce revulsion. Then he says "was never intended for human beings" which is a distinctly unscientific turn of phrase, "intended" by whom? God? I'm not even debating that meat consumption can be a health risk, but this quote is fishy. For all your ...
..." <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote: 'Everything in the earthly universe of life is given to humans for their use, but only on the condition of respecting the life. You can't say that ... of it so you'll never understand completely. The author of the Bible would understand and allow humans not only to raise animals for food, but also to kill and eat wild animals and fish...
..., "Dutch" <not@home.com> wrote: they should stop existing. It's crazy what's crazy is calling for their extinction as you do... They feel that's the most ethical approach humans could take, but can't explain exactly why. It might well be You are convinced that it is as you have proven consistently. You've never made a coherent argument to the ...
... in the short term, which is all that matters. Most people believe intutitively that we have a moral obligation to humane care of animals that we raise. I agree strongly with that intuition. When they are treated humanely, the food is BETTER, HEH. That's probably true, but not the point either. We have moral (and ...
... octinomos Try explaining why these people are so opposed to considering the animals that humans have influence on. They're pretending to take the time to "discuss" it, but amusingly ..., much less discussed. Why would anyone waste their time telling people *not* to think about human influence on animals? I'm not sure. I just think you should deal with each individual...
... In order to consider whether or not human influence on animals is cruel to the animals, ...argue that we shouldn't consider whether or not human influence is cruel to the animals. That's ... are so opposed to considering the animals that humans have influence on. They're pretending to ...> anyone waste their time telling people *not* to think about human influence on animals?
... More irony dingbat, you started this thread with a predictable loser ad hominem. Not at all, wretch. My participation in this thread began with quotes from authoritative sources regarding humans' natural diet. You completely ignored and snipped two of them, just to question the authenticity of the third. Given the 'proof' that you required, in the form of a reference to the ...
...wrote in message news:9bu793hvfp1lu6fvd9ro9h7vicqa2srtsr@4ax.com... On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:31:56 +0100, "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote: 'Everything in the earthly universe of life is given to humans for their use, but only on the condition of respecting the life. You can't say that you respect the lives of animals raised to eat when you don't want them to exist at ...
...> In order to consider whether or not human influence on animals is cruel to the animals, ... argue that we shouldn't consider whether or not human influence is cruel to the animals. That's ... are so opposed to considering the animals that humans have influence on. They're pretending to take ... their time telling people *not* to think about human influence on animals? I'm not sure. I ...
