I wasn't actually saying pro/against on the subject.

I was only stating that the idea had crossed my mind about human experimentation.

Like I said before, if I knew that I had a terminal illness and there was no hope, and the medical community said they had the possibility of a cure, I might be willing to go ahead and volunteer for experimentation. What would I have to lose ?

Granted, the experiment would likely fail and I would die anyway, but if it worked, then another breakthrough is accomplished.

Of course, I can't say with certainty what I would do.

If the doctors told me that I was going to die in six months, then I might very well just decide to ride my motorcycle, get laid as much as possible, drink massive amounts of beer and whiskey and wait for the end.

But the idea had crossed my mind on occasion.

"I wasn't actually saying pro/against on the subject."

I was referring to the terrorist scum, not you.

"Like I said before, if I knew that I had a terminal illness and there was no hope, and the medical community said they had the possibility of a cure, I might be willing to go ahead and volunteer for experimentation. What would I have to lose ?"

In point of fact, this is a required step by nearly every first world nation before a treatment or drug can be released publically. It not only happens, but has happened for decades.

I guess I stand corrected and a little more educated on that subject.

Take your tin foil utopia antenna off dipshit. Again, you are one of 7 billion. You did not invent ethics and ethics are subjective and situational and have never  been static. You are not the dictator of the world nor is the world centered around you.

Cut the fucking crap. You are all talk, just like any fucking politician or theist.

Lets say you are right, "eating animals is always bad". Bullshit, but lets play pretend which is what you are doing.

I don't want to see your next post full of emotional crybaby tearjerking emotional claptrap.

You have already stated your postion so we know what you believe.

So other than fearmongering and bulling and emotional blackmail, HOW would you go about getting people to see your point of view? Tactic, not position, is my issue.

Talk is cheap. And considering our evolution the odds of you getting 7 billion to conform to you is an an absurd proposition. So other than emotional masturbation what do you have?

If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.

 

I believe that's how arguing for a position usually works, yes.

That's not my position, if you find a dead cow on your porch you're free to eat it, fuck it, or pretend it's MacGyver and discuss the weather with it, I don't give a shit.

It's not my fault your cognitive dissonance is causing you emotional distress. Well actually I guess it kinda is but I don't really give a shit.

Gee, I dunno, maybe I'd make arguments like that animals feel pain exactly like we do, or maybe I'd expose people's silly double standards like if they thought piling crabs on top of each other was just horrible I might let them know they do the exact same thing to cows, you know, the stuff I've been doing all along for the whole fucking thread maybe?

You really skip like half the things I write don't you? I just responded to the exact same fucking thing. No sane person thinks any argument will ever convince everyone, and it's not at all necessary for the veganism argument to do so in order to make a difference.

We could do the right thing and let them run free to be subject to humane slaughter by wolves and such.

We be animals. In nature the rule is eat anything that doesn't eat you first.

 

Perhaps you mean we should do it the way it is done in nature and rip pieces off of them until they die of blood loss. That is the natural way to do it. Although I would prefer the human approach of poking the with sharp stones on the end of sticks until they die of blood loss. It is the way most animals kills. Even cats tend to go for clamping down on the throat while ripping out the guts with the hind claws. That is what you pet kitty was trying to do the one and only time you really pissed it off.

You failed Anthopology 101 no doubt. Fact is there are always women ready to fuck and rape has always been considered bad form. 

Partial answer and facts for non-farmers. ALL crops are like grapes for wine. There are good years and bad and in the same year what is good in one place can be bad in another. What is sold for human consumption is the best of the crop regardless of the crop, soy beans, wheat, corn, everything. What is not sold for human consumption becomes animal feed.

IF we grew just enough for human consumption the range of say bread would be outrageously priced for the best and bargain priced made from what we feed to cattle. The fact that we raise animals means all of the grain products we eat are top quality. Conversely if we were all veggies and shipped what we do not eat to the "starving" people we  would be sending what we do not consider fit for human consumption. We would be sending what is now animal feed.

It is the existence of a meat industry that permits top quality cereals for people as there is a market for what is not good enough for people. If the worst had to be scrapped the cost of the best in light of the less than best being a total loss would skyrocket.

 

 

Beyond the tortured usage of torturing how can it be applied to the non-sentient? Do you  have a tortured meaning for nonsentient also?

 

Yes they are rotated. Most often corn is rotated with soybeans because soybeans add nitrogen to the soil which leads to larger corn yields. And virtually every farmer here in Ohio (a state that produces almost twice as much soybeans as your entire country) rotates beans with corn. Some use a four crop rotation cycle which usually runs soybeans, corn, alfalfa, wheat but the two crop rotation is certainly the most common. At least bother doing a cursory google before you say such ignorant things. Go learn something.  

 

   I know this is not meant to be funny but I am laughing (this remarking is starting to sound like Harley).

No they aren't. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, as usual.
If you had a clue what you're talking about, you'd know most soy crops aren't grown in the US. South America produces more than the US does, and crops are also grown in Asia. In fact the US accounts for only 35% of soy production world wide. As if anecdotal evidence wasn't enough to shut you down, you felt the need to demonstrate your ignorance. Congrats!

Next time take your own advice.

^ Terrorists don't understand population management, even when its in the best interest of the population, which has ironically evolved under human care to be dependant on humanity, and could not be released into the wild for both their own safety and the general environment at large.

Too funny.

Quote me saying "let's release em all to the wild". Do it fucker. Oh that's right, I didn't suggest any such thing so shove your strawman up your dickhole.

While I'm on this segment of vegan stupidity, what exactly would you recommend be done with the billions of pigs, cows, and chickens which have no natural habitat and haven't had one for millennia, instead of caring for them as we have for those millennia and eating them as any predator consumes its prey, though in far more humane practices of slaughter than can be found in nature?

Sounds like the only truly pleasing result to them would be the extinction of all life. Funny how they'd make that choice for all life without consent of such life.
Is this your position, terrorist?

Some Anti-Natalists seem to be more focused on humans ending breeding, while most of the ones I encountered on the Net and on YouTube were indeed vegan, alot of them were focused on the problem of human existence.

Guy named David Benatar wrote a book called : Better to have never been, which more or less concludes that seeing all life phase out is the solution to suffering.

A lot of them view nature as an inherently cruel thing, and breeding as an immoral act of bringing a life into the world that it does not choose to be in, only to subject it to a best case scenario of living, growing old, watching those it cares about dies, and then finally dying. Not to mention all of the other things that sentient beings face, such as depravation, torture, rape, wars, famine, plagues etc.

True enough, rather than sterilizing, one poster did put forth the notion that if all slaughterhouses were blown up, that would end the potential for trillions of future animals that will be born into captivity, subjected to inhumane treatment, killed and then consumed.

@ Harley, isn't it funny how there's a presupposed belief of humanity as the source of evil in this? The ultimate irony would be them succeeding, and then the last vegan (nay human!) gets to witness first contact with an alien species which values REAL torture, and strings them up, gutting and cooking them alive.

no one i know or have met.  i wager i've met more farmers in an afternoon than you have in your entire life.

no, the alternative of losing a cow and an unborn calf because bossy gored molly, among other things.

so you have no problem with meat-eating per se?  thank god for that.

so go talk where you have cred.  like a greenpeace website.

I did some searching about vegan dieting for children and found both favorable and unfavorable results :

Here is link :

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/30/vegan-diet-for-kids_n_1464362.html

The article states :

Apparently 'Old McDonald Had A Farms' doesn't cut it when it comes to early childhood education any more. Vegan is Love: Having Heart and Taking Action isn't the typical bedtime story you'd find parents reading to their kids before kissing them goodnight -- unless that parent likes to leave images of bloody steaks in meat lockers lingering in the dreams of their six year old.

The picture book, which was released last week, is being slammed as inappropriate, with experts saying the graphic images are akin to brainwashing children to think that veganism is the only lifestyle capable of "standing up for yourself and all other living beings and that is love."

The book also reignites the debate of whether a vegan diet is right for young children. A diet that's free of meats or foods produced by animals has been found to have benefits like lowered risk for diseases, physical perks, and an overall healthier lifestyle. But many parents and nutritional experts question whether the same applies to those who are still growing.

(The rest of the article can be found at the link)

Another Link :

http://moms.today.com/_news/2012/04/17/11102428-should-kids-go-vegan?lite

The article states :

While her classmates dive right into the sweet treats at school events, Ruby Roth’s 7-year-old stepdaughter Akira always asks first: “Is it vegan?”

If it’s not, Roth says, her stepdaughter politely replies, “OK, I don’t want it.”

Roth, 29, didn’t become a vegan until an adult, challenged to do so, she says, by her husband, who was raising his daughter as a vegan. “Everything else in my life kind of pointed to me being vegan.” Her mother was a lifelong vegetarian, and Roth, who now lives in Los Angeles, grew up on an organic tree farm. Her passion for veganism has spurred her to write and illustrate two children’s books on the subject. “Why We Don’t Eat Animals” was published in 2009, and “Vegan is Love” is due out April 24.

Many parents might wonder how any child could thrive on a diet that eliminates all animal products, including milk and cheese, eggs, meat and fish. Yet, according to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association), “appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes.”

A well-planned vegan diet, one that contains nutrients vital for normal development, such as vitamins B12 and D, iron, calcium, zinc and protein, won’t stunt kids’ growth, says TODAY’s nutrition expert Joy Bauer. Substantial amounts of B12 are naturally found only in foods derived from animals, Bauer notes, so breastfeeding vegan moms need to make sure they get it from fortified soy milk and cereals. After they’re weaned, kids can drink fortified soy milk themselves

(Rest of the article at link)

This NY Times Journalist is not so favorable :

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/17/is-veganism-good-for-everyone/a-choice-with-definite-risks

Nature created humans as omnivores. We have the physical equipment for omnivory, from teeth to guts. We have extraordinary needs for nutrients not found in plants. They include fully-formed vitamins A and D, vitamin B12, and the long-chain fatty acids found in fish.

The breast milk of vegan mothers is dramatically lower in a critical brain fat, DHA, than the milk of an omnivorous mother.

For babies and children, whose nutritional needs are extraordinary, the risks are definite and scary. The breast milk of vegetarian and vegan mothers is dramatically lower in a critical brain fat, DHA, than the milk of an omnivorous mother and contains less usable vitamin B6. Carnitine, a vital amino acid found in meat and breast milk, is nicknamed “vitamin Bb” because babies need so much of it. Vegans, vegetarians and people with poor thyroid function are often deficient in carnitine and its precursors.

(Rest of the article can be found at link)

This article has pros and cons :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/20/veganism-safe-children

Amanda Baker at the Vegan Society says the real issue isn't whether a child's diet is vegan or not, or restricted or not – the important thing is whether it's healthy. "There are plenty of children who are eating a bad diet, and they're not vegan," she says. "Vegan parents have to plan their child's food carefully. Of course there are pitfalls, but there are pitfalls for all parents and for any diet.

"The reality is that vegan parents are more likely to cook at home, and are likely to be very knowledgeable about nutrition because they have had to make a lot of effort to follow the diet they do. Many of them follow a wholefood diet, and avoid trans-fats and too much salt. It's actually much easier for vegans and their children to meet the five-a-day guidelines than for other people."

Vegans, she says, are victims of the fact that many people, from doctors and health workers to social workers and other parents, are badly informed. "We've written to every GP's surgery in an attempt to make sure there's better information out there. Parents can come in for mistaken pressure from people with genuine concerns, simply because the issues aren't properly understood."

Paediatric dietician Helen Wilcock, a member of the British Dietetic Association, says she tries not to be judgmental about the rights and wrongs of vegan diets for young children, but any parent wanting to raise their child as a vegan needs to be very well-informed. "Vegan children can be deficient in vitamin D, calcium, iron and possibly vitamin B12, so they need supplements," she says.

(Rest of the article at link).

I could keep posting this, but who is going to read all of it ?

It seems that there are mixed responses to this idea.

However, this was just what I found on a quick google search.

 

The important thing is that, contrary to the ridicilous propaganda many ignorant assholes like to spread, there is not a single vital nutrient you cannot get sufficient amounts of in a vegan diet. Humans simply have no biological necessity to eat nonvegan products, especially red meat. No one's claiming the diets of kids shouldn't ideally look somewhat different than adult diets, INCLUDING NONVEGAN DIETS, so the fact we should pay more attention to what our kids eat is not in any way an argument against veganism.

Also it's not really important but since it keeps popping up as if it means something, the idea that humans are "omnivores" because of our teeth and stuff and therefore eating cows is totally natural, why don't you explain to me why gorillas don't do the BBQ thing then despite their huge canines and why their diet consists almost entirely of plants (while the remaining few percent consists of insects, hardly something they need those teeth for). For maximum ignorant douche points (this is perfect for you, Vastet) why don't you ask em where they get their protein too, maybe even pick a fight, I'm sure those protein deficient pussies can't take a strong meat eating human down, right?

you, sir, have obviously never handled a cow, pig, chicken, rabbit, turkey, or any other kind of livestock in your life.  i bet your knowledge of farming comes mostly from inflammatory youtube videos.  why not spend a few months shoveling the shit of the animals you'd like to save, then make an informed judgment?  of course, it's easier to click away on a keyboard than go up to your elbows in bovine cunt trying to turn a calf the right way around.

you have no love for animals, only ideas.  i've vaccinated their asses, replaced their saltlicks, taken 45-minute showers to get their fuckin' afterbirth off me.  i've loved them.  so take your blonde dreadlocks, your skewed statistics, and your red, green, and yellow hackey-sack and fuck right off.

This is a truly amazing response. It's like if I was telling a school bully he shouldn't beat the other kids up and he replied with "well I spent 45 minutes getting his blood off my shirt so it's ok".

Another:
And in 2005, the Israeli Health Ministry issued a public warning against the consumption of soy in children and infants. It even advised day care centers and schools to strictly limit the amount of soy products served to children.